


* f, , n * v; 

) s V) 


(\Y r ^ i: () ^ ‘ • < \ V. » * / 

A- ' v ' . C L- V '' ' ❖ 

y\ O ^ cP .. <* ^ ^ ^kO*^. >* 

* A^V= -" 

^vyv yy 17 / p> */ N 


r > M O' 


.* y'-A 




V <a 



W' A % -. 

* « S» -A , ' ^ ' 



- <S ^ 

. _ ,,,.__. * ,V- <?• 

& ^ \ A >X V *. 

V**‘W "v,V'*‘ V .‘°A‘ */% 

**; ^ ^ •<#»' 

" Hi » sO o_ , 


♦ « , >* 

vV", 

A. v v 

* fit 

; A % 

/ % m 

G l U ' t> 
0 y &> 

Kt ^ 


, rVl * "o 0 

■€-A-M: A r 


*?4m * * H 


* VJO>, .. 

* z 

c5> % O WW8 ? » A V ^ 

■X ywu- . A >f. u 'v,vH\N '-v .-> 6 

O 'n A A <* •'«*«A A o H 

r o <v * ' 1 * * P A X C 0 N '■ *„ v o 

V> 0 y A <***, t ^ A X * 

' S * '*+, ^ O y 

x 0 ^. - ^ 


. 0 ’ * ' ” ”/ C' 

a A > v l -T % 

A ^ fA Vl.< A. H 


» I ' 


.' #■ 



X°*x 


0 M 0 


V % * + i 

\ I S ’ ' 

v ^ *v 

«• w ;iBi' %*« 


* o 
^ ,0' 

,<A % v * " 

a O T* <<l C A 

£ * 

^ *■*. s . A *~r7'/ 


,V "> 


0 


._. "''/v*'’'* H- 

; 00 ; c rT? V . v 

_ : *1 ^ x°°x. 



\'A ''?/, ^ / 0 « s 

aA X c 0 N ‘* 4 - o. 

0 -sSV, , ^ 

S ‘ ^'. -O0* 


C; 




>V 


O ■ ' // •N < A ' >' ^ v ^v ' N 

, V ■' > ' N; ^ 'V jj. 

^ . ' <> / 


%■ .<A - 

" -■’ « c,^ © A ; >v' 

\ a v 


•V 


A X c 0 N ♦ V o. 


0 j> v. 


MU V\ v/ A- / Ar 

, 0 ^* ^ ^ 0 , tf ' 

* 

,\V 

,, A* A ^ 

* x A 


,. A 7, 0 ^p<<^ * 

***£■: 

» «V •-?• 




'% A 






\ 0 ^. 


. yf^M 


■'o 0 X 


V/zW N o'* 

V' c - * V. ** .o> ,'V, 

A >.* ^ h v, ^ . '■■ * #«^v> * 



;: %:' „ A % ., 

/. O r J, y -KY^ 


.0° c 6 

ft* « *■ * 0 * 


Oo 


- , 

s- • -/ 'C‘ v- ^ s //, 

r {^53 c ' s / 

- 4 ':#: . \ o ^ A \v " 

r ^ ; : A-A ? - 

- V?s /' Viliv' o ,-A <> ■■■*&£' . a ® 

✓ v <I^‘ ’ ~ V, c9 ’ A 



0 o 


f ) \ 0 


N o> 


s ^ ■» ? 




^ A' 


> V 


’O * <r 
, 0 ^ ^ ^ 0 ,J / J c> 

A v- , ^ -•, * -A. 

^ AslV^, c ^ ^ ••■ 


'jA ^ - t; 

W , 0 

A>. * ■- H 0 ^ A 0 

Cs * .. > * 0 


A’ 


-A 

.^ v ^ 


SKW| ; (» ^ C U/^\v*\ X Si^ ^ \V </> 

n ^ v> > 'i i < 5 rO> ^ a^ v> 

O /f j s s a a ^ ^ A s r % 

' y ^ ^ s x 1 ft > 0 * K <\ O /f i v s xG 

^ ^ V 6 ^ ^ /v\ 0 ^ / ^ . \ « ft 


/ 


o. 


'*0 o x 


<^J 


A -r. 


_ d' y 

0 7 \ 

^ l ^ \ « D /, Z' . 

r\ ► * *\ 

■ «sfa% %■ ^ »*^K'- ' 

%t > "°o' t 

x 0 o . " 

V t q C' **- *Y^o - x . 



V ;< lA 






A 


N 




(.'v 


f J' 


! 1 \>A^ -K ^ 

VyA^ t n, 

♦ 0 s 0 ? ^ 0 - 

A 0' A 4 A 'C‘ 

^ AV * r r A < ^#A l V ^ A- 

A> ^ ^ jO|1 = AA a'V 

V - x 








,w 


" ■'( >;mi 

W 


<A ^ 

A ; ^ ^ r 

'VJ®L\$ * a a)‘ ^ C> ^ »¥M\\y; A y <p_ 

S A >• ^ AV •>> 0 ^ A> w> * .\v ■% n 

.1 ,, , ■* . c^. n 1 5»' * &i ^ AV 

P V^ X c 0 N c K 7 O. .^y . * v 1 fi k <!' A> v 0 N -. ^ r o * * 

*' ■»• x 'Jm&J 'V A ' *^rv, 

A A. « ^ U * ' r { 

~ ~ :. A •% * 

p | c 6 - . - - x 

l v * 0 /• r/ C>. tf ‘ V , S ' ^ ^ ,n k ^ 1 “ ,; /■ ' C‘ v' S s '■ v f y, A> “ •' " 0 V « 'i * 0 , 




V 


x 0c ^. 





0 o 



O 0 


\ 


xV ^ 


, V S • * V 
V S S ^ r /y 


a 1 ' 



WaA 



A' ^ - 

•V * 

. ✓ 

0 , v ^ A o ^ 

V V A" X N '• ♦ % 

A x 


A’ r- -P. 

V * iCC\ M A -. ■;. y 

'/ v « wv\V^nV/' zA ^ 


s ^ ^ 



/ * 4 S s -vV 


c - «V(^% "A , 

:4i^ - A- A 

v/ H 5 







^ « x° ^ 

^ v J) ^ * 


,y 6 o N 





; r Ap^ 

,\V ./* 

A^ V 'p A ^«> 

<-> . -V) 

\ ' 'O ** J ' . s. 

A X\ N c » N ‘ <■ 'V * * 


0 o 



t., ^ . 

^ 4 : %• .A' 


^ 'v/ppA.v c.^w-v'A 

v o-AA "• y\^o ■<> 


A "V- 


S ^ ^ 



A 


S « ^AYterW/. h . tP \V 



^ vA Vf. 

v . V 


yv ^ Ascawiiiiiu'ifc^ r ^ ^ 7/// v ^sTi AWV ^ <\> v ^ 

% y " x > A 7 * * s \ 0 ^\ - ' ; " ^ > x \^^V“ vS /' 

' y ' "' s ^' L rt' W $ •>■ ^ ■ 



Of '••'^\\\ 


/ n . 'A 

(; .1 X 


0 c 


a -Tt 


<*■ 







0 o 



• C] i> A 


O 0 


« .. »> 




' 


■o'- 

P ^ v 

k/> - 

* 

rP y 




') Ni 0 ^ ^ H \ \ ^ . ^ 

a< 5 ‘ *'*<A ^ - v 

.'X s 


\ 


<> » . 


' A v * 1 " °r \> \ S ** / . '> 

f ' * ^%or i 7 ^ v ~ ^:' R ' 

=* . \V ,r> “ A A V 7 V>: /ft^sfOCVk " 


> \ 0 


<* • ^ 
> «(r 


X 


v\^ ! X ? - C. Xi. 

51 % “ #4? .- v> ^ 

■f ' » . >A A *b V* 3 *, - , G ^ 

-S A 1 ' 1 ' c 0 * 0 *' V b 0 ^ ,■,'■'*♦ 

* ^ bo y tgm>y>+ 

* ' \ » \° ^ -I -o. 

^ v^.' fl ■ % *« *v *- 

A * o n o ’ *0-’ C d, ' 

,f s ^ A^ * 'f- ^ ’■ 0 / G* V' > ^ , \) ' 9 

A ~ ^ f? A ^ 'PG 

* ^W./fc r <v> a\ 


A^ * 

.\ x *• , e? 

G c 5 > * /a ' 

•<? ^ ® 5 1 




^ ; .-a 

- A- “ \ 

Aw » a> •/> 

... u * .\V '/V 

* ^ -i . ' <P 

■ f 0 • V •* A K 

A ' 0 N '. 


/ / / 

1 n 


% / 


- ^ 


0 o 


5 , ^ 

■* • T 


* ? b 


-' ; ;>9 



% <• C 

/ <7 i 

x #’ 


\ v 


sA - 


n 0 C‘ i- 

aO ^ ' 0 f P‘ v' k! s 

... - My* ; '^. ,^ x <-- M 

/ % A ■ 

* ^ **' o'-,.' 1 *. '•<*, A* V C»"«« '**•' A'» ' '" 


r. <P' AS 

?, ° ° b 

h as 2 


« 1 ^], 5 ' ,J A ,<\ xV s, A c*'‘ ^ ^ A 'c ^ a^' 7 ©^® t ^ ^ 

. \ /d ^ s o*^ f "*, ^ 'o- + A oW _ A 

kA v d$'A^> * 'K* A ^ ’^Aaa ’ v . x ’ * m-/!?.??? 1 '* *%>. 




<>^ V 

o o 







V ^ 






> ^ 

* •■ > JA-v v * 


, * „ %' B 1 A ^ \^ V , * « , r b>. ^ '' N 0 • a 0 ° 

cv v' 


o 


^ A> ‘ 

v'< Gs * 

V a ^ 

g/.’ ' a . 


r 4 [ .* 

0 


^ > 

■■vr" n 


/ A <r ^ 

n l ' 


o- \ 

V. 

‘>V ^\ 


O 0 



'A 


A r 

A 9 


\ 


0 o 


rp y ry * 

%, 'nV A 0 %, 

o> v v c 0 / '*y 

\i> y <<^ y* ** <* t 

- '% cA * aca <= 



rO 


hi yy : ^s - 

• '?A 3 %' y 

iS •<?•. ^ i/ •>' 


^ % - 
V c 0 N ° « ^b & 

* cS-A'A w <“ o 

Wv vT ^ 

« ^Mfvl ^ o- 

x 0 O >. A 

e • > ■• ... .r A A> 

^ ^ Q o. X 

O ff g J* dr- 

.<? »<•»,'%. -A X ■'• 


0 » K 


* v 

, s 

cPV * AA - % A x < 0 N ' 
. k „* * -- ■'* » 
o 0 X 


A tv > <J 5 » * ^ 7 -*. <a^T 

.V d> , ^ - C ->s _• W//fc 

\ 


.\y <s> 

AV Z 1 . 


0 


^ ' " 0 / ' y o 


5 ? -1 sp 



<1 \ 1 * <- 


J * OU •> ^ 

- ,^> yp - \ """ ' \ ( 

'' c' "i. '." n ' 


•.-V'i 5 '.' 


'■jj ~ \0 o 


^ V 

K C 


c ^ 

* « , ' c ^ 

J , ^ V ' 

AT. A>" ^ 

- £A'Aa'. i 2 r/> ’v ; 

' &A-S -J «> b 'A'MnF^ AV' ^ y ^SW ^ 

x y -^y*^ s sx N ■ •.> ( 3 -a N *>>, •■ ^ 

v A , , . ''’•■■■* a ^ vt^v ,c> v 

c! s ■- x't .- ;; *, *a p y', 1 - ■ p £ 

| #: ^ *J, 0 x ^ y-^b\A J 

» \J b' ^ /•/K • ^ ^ v) r? : y 

« 0 o i\f&':m %^$:-Ji } <t ^ ^ **• % : >i=Lr : * 

9 . A "%. «?*^ 

H - A 0 1 ' *' *S % ' " '* A S' s, A> "' s ° o>' »t.0, % * 

V V 1 , ^&//% ® ^ ^ c,A 

v #4?V Vfw- : aA % ^ . 

A- x 0 N , %:Ay' A ,,, c : ** <\ N % y 

* ^ • 0 ?gmy* ^ A A—k' 0 # A % 

:^^m’. •’bo' .miry' 1 : ^ > ?-’dp&; w : 00 * - 

«J> *?&$■* A '% .' A ’ r,. A % ' ^sv^ 1 ' 

^,c** Zi^vS./A= '■■p.y 


< ( 'b 



y v Z 


«5 ', *■. 





\ 




0 c 




y % \ l $m 


^ ^ aV - 

V t< „ ^\V->// >> " '•V' 

s. - . _ A^ ;.£spy% /. 

- V ,r» A /■ 

A? V 


vV v ^ _ ^ 

N <p -oAJA\F * A Ap * - 

' * * s y V I « . y 0 * >■ ^ \ X o ^ / 

0° a' .. /^ Z y .# C ° ^ . o. 

'fi ^T* 


V 


• v V 

O 0 v 





v,s^ r ^P t A 

<&. ' A V s 

K 0 o 





r ,y y 

ocr 

?/ <r 


4 -y 



0^ v*' 1 * « „'<S, ' 0 * 1 V' «•’•“* " 7 b ' ' 

' - x yyAA^ * * . x ' ^ yv'/ 0 

• r / ’ y! ^ J ‘ ■ 







v m 

III / ^ 

7 'Vxf/s £>~^^r 

//?$_ 






























THE 


Shoemaker Family. 


by^ 

THOMAS H.^SHOEMAKER. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED BY J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY. 
1893. 













I 


7 % 



HeCiicatiou. 

THIS LITTLE FAMILY SKETCH IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED 
TO MY COUSIN, 

ROBERT SHOEMAKER, 

WHO, DURING A LONG LIFE, HAS EVER FELT AN INTEREST IN HIS FAMILY 
HISTORY, DOING MUCH TO RESCUE IT FROM OBLIVION, 

AND 

WHO, WITH GREAT COURTESY AND CHEERFULNESS, HAS EVER FREELY PLACED 
THE INFORMATION HE HAD AT THE DISPOSAL OF OTHERS. 

T. H. S. 


[It will be seen that it was originally intended to illustrate this little work with some of the 
old homes of the family, but it was afterward found to add so greatly to its cost that the idea 
was abandoned, though the text was undisturbed.] 






PREFACE. 


From the frequency and number of questions asked 
about our family, there appears to be an awakening 
interest among its various members to know a little 
of the history of their ancestors. It has therefore 
seemed well, for the benefit of such inquirers, to place 
in a compact form such information as a number of 
years of research has furnished me with. It has not 
been at all my intention to attempt a genealogy of the 
family, but simply to lay the corner-stone for others, 
who may wish to build thereon their own particular 
lines. I have started with the earliest possible data 
obtainable of those of the name, and so specified the 
various earlier branches, of which I have a knowl- 
edge, that it should be comparatively easy work for 
any of their descendants to trace their lines back and 
make connection with the emigrants. The frequent 
repetition of Christian names in the different lines and 
generations necessitates great care and watchfulness 
on the part of those who may take up the subject, and 
the verifying of all such data, or errors will occur. 

Thomas H. Shoemaker. 

Germantown, Fourth month 3rd, 1893. 

5 


1 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 

Kriegsheim g 

CHAPTER II. 

Jacob Shoemaker 

CHAPTER III. 

Peter Shoemaker 19 

CHAPTER IV. 

George Shoemaker 25 

CHAPTER V. 

Naturalization of our Ancestors 27 

CHAPTER VI. 

Isaac, Son of George Shoemaker, Sen 30 

CHAPTER VII. 

Susanna Shoemaker Price 41 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Richard Wall, Sen 45 

7 


8 


CONTENTS . 


CHAPTER IX. 

PAGB 

Richard Wall, Jr 60 

CHAPTER X. 

Shoemaker Burying-Ground 62 

CHAPTER XI. 

George Shoemaker, Jr 68 

CHAPTER XII. 

Abraham Shoemaker 78 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Toby Leech 82 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Isaac Shoemaker 87 

CHAPTER XV. 

Descendants of Isaac and Dorothy Shoemaker 93 

CHAPTER XVI. 

Others of the Name I0 3 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Other Incidents 

» 


THE 


SCHUMACHER OR SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


CHAPTER I. 

KRIEGSHEIM. 

“Who that antique stories reads 
Consider may the worthy deeds 
Of our progenitours : 

Which should to us be right mirrours, 

Their virtuous deeds to ensue 
And vicious living to eschew.” 

If we had no other clue than the original name, 
there would be little doubt as to the country from 
whence the Schumacher family emigrated, so pro- 
nounced is its German origin. A very few years 
elapsed, however, after their arrival here, before it 
began to be Anglicized into that of Shoemaker, the 
change being a gradual one, for we can readily believe 
the emigrants parted with reluctance from this last 
relic of the Fatherland. Fortunately, however, we 
are not required to surmise regarding them, as reliable 
information is furnished us in the “List of Arrivals,” 

9 


IO 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


and Besse’s “Sufferings of the People called Quakers,” 
published in London in 1753. 

From the latter we learn that William Ames and 
George Rolf in 1657 visited Cresheim, a village in the 
Palatinate, on the right bank of the Rhine, not far from 
Worms. It is now known as Kriegsheim, having been 
changed to that since 1752. Professor Oswald Seiden- 
sticker, of Philadelphia, who has twice visited the village, 
once in 1874 and again in 1892, writes me regarding it: 
“ It is easily reached by taking the railroad from 
Worms to Manheim. At the depot of Manheim, you 
see Kriesheim right before you at a distance of less than 
a mile, and readily accessible by a pleasant country road. 

“ It is a small place, the houses mainly lining the road 
that passes from one end of the village to the other. 
Some of the houses look quite old. I was struck by 
the remnants of old walls, that perhaps in former 
times served as fortifications. There is also an old 
stone tower connected with the house of the Burgo- 
master. Knowing that William Penn had in 1677 
preached at Kriesheim, in a barn, I took notice of 
barns that had an oldish look, but it would be impos- 
sible to single out any on which to fasten the shadow 
of probability that it was the identical one.” 

To return to Ames and Rolf: they were ministers 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


ii 


of the Society of Friends, and by their preaching soon 
made converts to their faith among these simple- 
minded people, whose occupation appears to have been 
that of farming. It was natural that these ministers 
suffered much persecution as a consequence of their 
labors, as did their little band of converts, prominent 
among whom were George and Peter Schumacher. 

According to Besse, in 1663 a ^ ne °f one shilling 
was imposed on each person who joined an assem- 
bly for worship. Among those who suffered were the 
persons named in the following account : “ From 
George Shoemaker, Bedding worth feven Rix-Dol- 
lars : And from Peter Shoemaker, Goods worth 
two Guilders.” “ In 1664 feveral fuffered Diftrefs of 
Goods for refufing to bear Arms, on which Ac- 
count were taken from George Shoemaker, Pewter 
and Brafs worth three Guilders and a Half: From 
Peter Shoemaker, two Sheets worth three Guilders.” 
‘‘In 1666, the aforefaid George Shoemaker, Peter 
Shoemaker, John Hendrickz, and Chriftopher Moret, 
had each of them a Cow taken away for Fines, for 
their religious Meetings, which four Cows were 
worth fifty Rix- Dollars, though the Fines demanded 
amounted but to fixty Guilders from them all.” “The 
Diftreffes made in the Foregoing years for refufing 


12 


THE SHOEMAKER TAMIL I. 


to bear Arms, and for Meeting together, were com- 
puted to amount to 250 Guilders.” This latter sum 
was, of course, for all of the little community who 
refused to obey the laws. This record of Besse’s is 
all the early information obtainable of our family. 
Professor Seidensticker’s visit in 1874 to Kriegsheim 
was purposely to try and learn something more 
relative to the early history of the little settlement, 
but he found that in 1848 a fire had destroyed the 
church records, so that nothing could be obtained in 
that quarter, nor had the pastor of the village church, 
or its school-master, ever heard of the visit of William 
Penn to the place, so there were no traditions regarding 
them. Hearing of their persecutions, Penn, in 1677, 
determined to visit Kriegsheim, and I quote from his 
letter regarding it: 

“Worms 25th of the 6th Month 1677. 

“. . . which being done, & refrefhed ourfelves, we 
returned that Night by the Rhine to Worms, from 
whence we the next Morning, (being the Firft Day 
of the Week) Walked on Foot to Crifheim, which 
is about six English Miles from Worms. We had 
a good Meeting from the Tenth till the Third Hour, 
& the Lord’s Power fweetly opened to many of the 
Inhabitants of the Town that were at the Meeting ; 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


*3 


yea, the Vaught or Chief Officer himself Stood at the 
Door behind the Barn, where he could hear, & not 
be feen ; who went to the Priest & told him, that it 
was his Work, if we were Hereticks, to discover us 
to be fuch, but for his Part, he had heard nothing but 
what was Good, & he would not meddle with us. In 
the Evening we had a more retired Meeting of the 
Friends only, very weighty & tender : yea the Power 
rofe in an high Operation among them, & great was 
the Love of God that rofe in our Hearts at the 
Meeting to vifit them ; & there is a lovely, sweet, & 
true fenfe among them. We were greatly comforted 
in them, & they were greatly comforted in us. Poor 
Hearts, a little Handful furrounded with Great & 
mighty Countries of Darkness : ’tis the Lord’s Great 
Goodness & Mercy to them, that they do fo finely 
keep Natural in the Seed of Life. They were moft 
of them gathered by dear William Ames.” 

A few years later, when Penn was founding the 
Province which bears his name, he extended an invi- 
tation to these Germans to join him in the wilderness, 
where at least religious toleration would be theirs. 
They gladly accepted, and it led to the formation of 
the Frankfort Company, which secured five thousand 


14 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


three hundred and fifty acres of land about six miles 
north of Philadelphia. On this spot they located. 
The first to arrive came in 1683, under the lead of 
Francis Daniel Pastorius ; among the number was 
Jacob Schumacher. There is no way now of knowing 
positively, but most likely he was a brother of George 
and Peter, and being single apparently, he probably 
acted as a pioneer, to report the kind of place it was, 
and the advisability of his brothers, with their large 
families, coming out. We thus have as the founders 
of our family in this country the three brothers, 
Jacob, Peter, and George Shoemaker. Jacob, single 
at this period, who came in 1683; Peter, with five 
children, three of whom came with him in 1685 ; and 
George, who, with his wife and seven children, sailed 
in 1686; though he died on the voyage, the widow 
and seven children arrived safely. In those days, 
when money was scarce, the requisite amount to pay 
the passage, six pounds per head, was no small tax 
on the resources of the emigrants. 

The picture we have of Kriegsheim is one which I 
had made by a photographer of Worms, in the spring 
of 1893, and probably conveys a very good idea of 
what the village was in the early times now recorded, 
the changes there being much slower than with us. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


i5 


CHAPTER II. 

JACOB SHOEMAKER. 

I have little knowledge of Jacob and his descend- 
ants. A portion of the lot on which the Friends’ 
Meeting-House stands, corner of Main and Coulter 
Streets, Germantown, was given by Jacob for that 
purpose. The following gives the date : 

“In a deed dated 1st Month, 4th 1690, Abraham 
Isaac op den Graef conveyed two lots to Jacob Shoe- 
maker, and in 1693 he (Jacob Shoemaker) conveyed 
them to Friends.” A portion of the wording is, “ Being 
fifty acres, or a whole lot (three perches square, next 
to Jacob Isaac van Bebber only excepted, which the 
said Jacob Shoemaker, herebefore hath granted and 
conveyed unto the Quakers, so called, for their meet- 
ing place, and are always to be fenced by the owners 
thereof).” The Friends afterwards added very much 
to the original “three perches square” thus conveyed. 
In the borough and court records of Germantown is 
also an item regarding him: “1692, the 29th day of 
9th Month, John Silans, (upon Jacob Schumacher’s 


i6 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


complaint) promised before this court to finish the 
said Jacob Schumacher’s barn within four weeks next 
coming.” How primitive this now appears to us ! 
No fines or penalties attached for non-fulfilment, but 
simply the delinquent’s promise exacted. 

The late Joseph S. Paxson was much interested in 
his Shoemaker genealogy, which he had traced back 
to a Jacob and Margaret Shoemaker, but could not 
discover who Jacob was. After investigation, I became 
convinced that it was this Jacob, who removed in 
1 714-15 from Abington to Philadelphia (Germantown 
Meeting Records were at this time kept at Abington). 
The certificate reads as follows : 

“ from our Monthly Meeting held at Abington y e 
28th of 1 2th Month 1 714/15. To our friends and 
brethern at Philadelphia to whom these may Come. 
Whereas our friends Jacob Shoomaker with his wife 
and family hath Removed themselves to you, then our 
-sayd friends Jacob Shoomaker and Margaret his wife 
are in unity with friends, and have walked orderly and 
were serviceable in theire place ; more over theire too 
sons Thomas and Jacob, with theire daughter Susanna, 
are clear from all engagements of marriage as far as 
we know, and we hope well inclined, and it is our 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


17 


desire they may be kept unto the Lord, were pres- 
ervation is known, we Allso Recomend them to your 
further care. So with y e salutation of our dear Love 
in y e Blessed Truth, we Remain your friends and 
brethern. 

‘‘Signed in behalf of y e sayd Meeting. 


“Wm Preston David Potts 

“ Edmund Topwood 
“Evard Bolton Isaac Deaves 

“ Daniel Walton 

“ Morris Morris Potter Clower 

“ Isaac Shoemaker Peter Shoemaker 

“and several others.” 


Sara Buzby 
Margt Bolton 
Hannah Willmorton 
Margaret Paull 
Mary Luking 
Jane orpwood 


Jacob’s wife is believed to have been Margaret, 
daughter of Richard Gove ; the date of their marriage 
is, however, unknown. 

Jacob’s will is dated “9 Mo 22nd 1722;” in it he 
leaves his turning tools, timber, and materials, and 
utensils and tools belonging to the trades of turning 
and wheelmaking, to his son Jacob, Jr. ; to his son- 
in-law, John Brienwall, five shillings ; to his wife Mar- 
garet, all the residue. On the decease of his widow 
his estate was to be divided equally between his three 
sons, George, Thomas, and Jacob, Jr., and their heirs, 
they, however, paying one-fourth of all said estate 


i8 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


unto his grandchildren, David and Mary Brienwall, 
when they attained the age of twenty-one years, or 
on the day of their marriage. His widow was his sole 
executrix. Jacob, Jr., married Elizabeth Roberts, and 
had three sons, Thomas, and David and Jonathan, 
twins ; from Jonathan, who married Sarah Lownes, 
comes what I may term the Paxson-Hathway-Pickering 
line. Sarah Lownes Shoemaker lived to the age of 

A 

ninety-five, dying in 1825. She gave much informa- 
tion to Watson when he was writing his Annals, and 
he frequently quotes her. As showing the great 
change in values in property, he states that she told 
him that William Penn offered to sell her grandfather, 
James Lownes, the square of ground between Arch 
and Market, Front and Second Streets, for the sum 
of twenty pounds. His reply was, “ How long will I 
have to wait until I see my money returned in profit ?” 

This concludes Jacob’s line. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


x 9 


CHAPTER III. 

PETER SHOEMAKER. 

Jacob's report to his brothers, who awaited it in 
Kriegsheim, must have been favorable, as the following 
from the “ List of Arrivals” shows : “ The Francis & 
Dorothy, from London, Richard Bridgeman, Com- 
mander, arrived in Philadelphia, 8 Mo 14th 1685, (old 
style). Among the passengers were Peter Schuma- 
cher, and Peter his sonn, Mary his daughter, and Sarah 
his Cosen, and Frances and Gertrude his daughters.” 

Judge Pennypacker, in the Pennsylvania Magazine , 
vol. iv. p. 22, gives Peter’s history as follows: “Peter 
Schumacher, an early Quaker convert from the Men- 
nonites, is the first person definitely ascertained to 
have come from Krisheim, the little village in the 
Palatinate to which so much prominence has been 
given. Fortunately, we know under what auspices he 
arrived. By an agreement with Dirk Sipman, of 
Crefeld, dated August 16, 1685, was t0 proceed 
with the first good wind to Pennsylvania, and there 
receive 200 acres from Herman Op den Graeff, on 


20 


THE SHOEMAKER TAMIL Y. 


which he should erect a dwelling, and for which he 
should pay a rent of two rix dollars a year.” I think 
the judge errs when he says Peter was the first person 
known to have come from Kriegsheim. There is little 
doubt Jacob Shoemaker came from that village in 
1683, also Gerhard Hendricks the same year; of the 
latter there is no question. The judge has a deed of 
Peter’s written by Pastorius. 

Peter Shoemaker, Sen., seems to have been a man 
of considerable importance in the town. In 1693 he 
was one of the four persons who signed the certificate 
of Samuel Jennings, as a delegate from the Philadel- 
phia Quarterly Meeting to the Yearly Meeting at 
London. He died in Germantown in 1707, aged 
eighty-five years. 

Besides his son, Peter, Jr., and his three daughters, 
Mary, Frances, and Gertrude, who accompanied him 
over, he had two others. The fifth child, a daughter, 
married Dielman Kolb. She died in 1 705, aged fifty 
three years, and is buried at Wolfsheim, in the Pa- 
latinate, never having emigrated. The issue of this 
Kolb marriage were Ann, Peter, Martin, Johannes, 
Dielman, and Henry, four of whom became Mennonite 
ministers, all but two eventually emigrating to this 
country. The name is usually now spelled Kulp. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


21 


The sixth child of Peter Shoemaker, a daughter, mar- 
ried Reynier Hermans Van Burklow, who, in 1704, 
removed to Bohemia Manor, Cecil County, Maryland. 
Frances, the second daughter, according to Abington 
Meeting Records, married, Fifth month 28th, 1690, 
Isaac Jacob. What became of the two remaining 
daughters is not now known. This only leaves his 
son Peter, Jr., to be accounted for. Abington Meet- 
ing Records furnish the following: 

“Whereas Peter Shoemaker Jr & Margaret Op de 
Graeff, both of Germantown in y e County of Phila- 
delphia, Haveing proceeded according to the good 
order used amongst friends ; in declaring theire In- 
tentions of marriage did upon the Sixth day of the 
Second Month 1697, At the publique meetinge house 
of friends in Germantown, accomplish their marriage, 
many friends being present as witnesses, some of wch 
are under written. 

“ Peter Shewmaker Sen Jacob Shewmaker 
“ Harmon op de Graeff Isaac prise 

“jjack Jacobus Aret Klenken 

“ Peter Clever, mark x francis Daniel Pastorius 
“George Shewmaker Johannes Custis 

“Tho Tustin & many others,” 


22 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


Peter, Jr., and Margaret had ten children, nine of 
whom are accounted for, — viz., Sarah, who married 
Daniel Potts, and removed to Hunterdon County, 
New Jersey; Peter 3d, Isaac, Daniel, and John, sons 
whose marriages are not known ; Mary, who married 
Thomas Phipps ; Margaret, who married Benjamin 
Wasson; Elizabeth, who married Joseph Davis; and 
Agnes, who was apparently unmarried. 

Peter Shoemaker, Jr., appears in different offices in 
the town ; among them, under date of December 30, 
1701, “it was found good to start a school in Ger- 
mantown, and Arent Klinken, Paul Wollf, and Peter 
Schumacher Jr were appointed overseers to collect 
subscriptions and arrange with a teacher/’ Pastorius 
was the first pedagogue selected. On Twelfth month 
31st, 1703, we find that “Peter Schumacher and Isaac 
Schumacher shall arrange with workmen that a prison 
house and stocks be put up as soon as possible.” In 
a deed he is mentioned as a “Turner.” He seems to 
have died about Fourth month 1st, 1741, his will being 
proven Fourth month 4th, 1 740/1. 

It will be remembered that Peter, Sen., was accom- 
panied on the voyage over by his “ Cosen Sarah ;” she 
married Edward Eaton, of Cheltenham, Third month 
1 8th, 1688. Edward’s name appears on the first tax 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


23 


list of Fifth month, 1693, he being assessed for property 
valued at thirty pounds, on which he paid two shillings 
and sixpence. He became apparently a follower of 
George Keith, and left Friends to join Trinity Church, 
Oxford, his tomb being one of the oldest in the grave- 
yard. 

The inscription reads: 

“ Here lieth the body of Edward Eaton, 
who departed this life December y e 25, 
in the year of our Lord 1709, aged 65 years. 

“ My dear Redeemer is above. 

Him am i gone to see: 

And all my friends in Christ below 
Shall soon come after me. 

“ In Christ i lived & dyed. 

Through Him I live again ; 

My body here is layed 
My soul with Christ shall reign.” 

George Shoemaker is a witness to his will and one 
of the appraisers of his wife’s estate in 1716. On 
the marriage certificate of George, Jr., and Sarah 
Wall Shoemaker, next to George’s mother, comes 
Sarah Eaton. The only issue of the Eaton marriage 
appears to have been a daughter, Sarah, who, in 
1717, married John Harris. From this marriage there 


24 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


seems to have been no issue, so that the line of Sarah 
Shoemaker ends. 

Sarah Eaton Harris was executrix of her father’s 
will in 1709, and administered to her mother’s estate 
in 1716; she died about 1775 or 1 776. Her will is 
on record at Philadelphia ; it is long, and among others 
she mentions her cousins Shoemaker. 

This concludes the line of Peter Shoemaker. T. 
Maxwell Potts, of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is at 
present tracing up his line of descent from Peter, Jr., 
and I have also understood that Elwood Michener, of 
Toughkenamon, Pennsylvania, has a genealogical tree 
of Peter’s descendants, prepared by his father, the late 
Dr. Michener, but do not know how complete it is. 
Further information can be had from the Pennsylvania 
Magazine , vol. iv. p. 39, and Cassel’s “ History of the 
Mennonites.” 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


25 


CHAPTER IV. 

GEORGE SHOEMAKER. 

The next of the family to come are of more inter- 
est to us, as from them the most of those bearing the 
name are descended. They were George Shoemaker, 
Sarah, his wife, and their seven children, — George, Jr., 
twenty-three years of age; Barbary, twenty; Abra- 
ham, nineteen ; Isaac, seventeen ; Susanna, thirteen ; 
Elizabeth, eleven ; and Benjamin, ten. They sailed in 
the ship Jefferies, Thomas Arnold, master, from Lon- 
don, landing at Chester First month 20th, 16S8 (old 
style). They did not, however, all reach here, as the 
father died at sea of the small-pox, but the widow and 
her children came on to what their English neighbors 
called the German Town. Of their early struggles we 
have no account, but they were no doubt severe. 

I am only familiar with the lines of three of these 
children, — viz., George, Jr., Isaac, and Susanna, — and 
in the following pages have given some of their issue. 
What became of Barbary, Abraham, Elizabeth, and 
Benjamin is not known, as I have failed to come across 


2 6 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


them in any records or meeting minutes. When the 
widow died is also unknown. Her name appears on 
the marriage certificate of her son George in 1694, 
and that is the last definite knowledge we have. 

I find in Abington Meeting Records the marriage 
of a Catharine Shoemaker to Peter Cleaver, Third 
month 27th, 1695. Who this Catharine was I cannot 
make out, as she must have been born in Germany, 
and can only presume she may have possibly been 
one of George’s daughters, an error having occurred 
in the names in the “ List of Arrivals” or the Meeting 
Minutes, but this is all surmise on my part. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


27 


CHAPTER V. 

NATURALIZATION OF OUR ANCESTORS. 

Among the first naturalizations by Act of Assembly 
is one bearing date 1708. It appears in Benjamin 
Franklin’s editions of the laws, printed in 1742, page 
no, and also in the Peter Miller edition, printed in 
1762, page 46. It reads as follows: 

“An Act for the better enabling of divers Inhabit- 
ants of the Province of Pennsylvania, to hold and 
enjoy Lands, Tenements, and Plantations in the same 
Province.” 

The first preamble to the act states that under the 
Royal Charter all persons not specially forbidden can 
settle in the Province and hold lands, etc. ; but, as 
appears below, there arose for some reason the ques- 
tion as to whether this prerogative was enjoyed by 
these Germans ; hence the act was specially passed 
for their benefit. The second preamble is, — 

“And Whereas divers of the Protestant or Re- 
formed Religion, who were Inhabitants of High and 
Low Germany, about Five-and-Twenty years ago, (out 


28 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


of a Desire to come under the Power & Protection 
of the Crown of England, and partake of the Ad- 
vantages proposed for the Encouragement of the Ad- 
venturers to settle this new Colony) imbraced the 
Invitations they had from the Proprietary, to transport 
themselves and Estates here ; and since they came, 
did contribute the utmost of their Power to enlarge 
this Part of the English Empire, and always behaved 
themselves as dutiful and peaceable Subjects, and sev- 
eral of them have made and subscribed the Declara- 
tions and Test by Law appointed, instead of the Oaths 
of Supremacy : And the Rest are ready and willing to 
do it when required of, admitted so to do. 

“ Now, for as much as the Value of Lands in this 
Province being generally but the Effects of the Peo- 
ples Labour, their Plantations are deemed by our 
Laws, but as Chattels to pay Debts, and as strangers 
have been rendered capable to hold what they pur- 
chased as fully and freely as if they had been natural- 
born subjects of this Province; but since the Repeal 
of the late Laws made (after the Example of other 
Governments) for Encouragement of the Peopling and 
settling of this Colony, some doubts & Questions have 
arisen whether the said Germans are capable to hold 
what they purchased as aforesaid ; For Removing of 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


29 


which Doubt, Be it Enacted etc, etc, That Francis 
Daniel Pastorius, Peter, Jacob, George, and Isaac 
Shoemaker etc, (there being seventy-three others), 
and every of them, who shall within six months after 
the first day of September 1709, at some Court of 
Quarter-Sessions of the Peace for the said County of 
Philadelphia etc, make and subscribe the Declarations 
and Professions of Faith allowed to those that cannot 
swear instead of the Oaths of Supremacy & Alle- 
giance, or shall otherwise qualify themselves as the 
Court shall require.” The act goes on to state that 
it shall enable them to be capable of holding lands, 
etc., with all the advantages that would accrue to them, 
the same as if they were “ free and natural born Sub- 
jects of this Province.” Thus did our ancestors by a 
special act become citizens of the Province of Penn- 
sylvania. 


30 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


CHAPTER VI. 

ISAAC, SON OF GEORGE SHOEMAKER, SEN. 

The first of the seven emigrant and fatherless chil- 
dren to enter matrimony was Isaac, the fourth child of 
George Shoemaker, Sen. He married Sarah, daughter 
of Gerhard Hendricks, a prominent Friend, and one 
of the signers of the first protest against slavery, as 
will appear later. Hendricks had drawn Lot No. 8 in 
the Pastorius division of the town. It extended from 
Main Street to Bristol Township line. His house he 
built about a quarter of a mile from Main Street, on 
the Wingohocking Creek, the lane leading back being 
known until the last few years as Shoemaker Lane, 
and of course now being built up. The house was 
of stone and frame, and stood until torn down in 
1840 by Mr. Mehl, and from its passing to Isaac, 
through his wife, became known as Shoemaker’s 
House. (See its picture in Watson’s Annals.) The 
picture we have here is very similar, and was secured 
by Mr. Watson for Samuel M. Shoemaker, of Balti- 
more. Mr. Watson had previously secured the old 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


3i 


family Bible of the Hendricks family from a family 
named Hexhart, of Germantown, one of whose mem- 
bers had been employed by the early Shoemakers. 
It has a great many Shoemaker records in it, but had 
in some way passed out of their possession into that 
of their hired man. It was published in Zurich in 
1538, and now, thanks to Mr. Watson’s intervention, 
is in the possession of Mrs. S. M. Shoemaker, of Bal- 
timore. It was during the correspondence, in 1842, 
about the Bible that Mr. Watson wrote as follows : 
“ Since writing, I have concluded to have a copy made 
for you of the Old Schumacher homestead, the place 
built in 1682, so marked upon the lintel of the door, 
at which place William Penn stood on a small rock 
near the door, and preached to the people. It was 
situated in a beautiful natural meadow, and the whole 
makes a picturesque picture. I have paid one dollar 
for the drawing for your use. I recommend you, as 
it will be of sufficient size, to have it framed as a 
parlor picture, and on the back of it, on the board, to 
paste the leathern remains of the Bible, and to write 
the history and description of the family relics so pre- 
served ; so do I in similar cases. Possibly its frame 
could be made of some of the old oak of the house 
by my seeking for it, in the same frame in the corners 


32 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


could be worked the wooden boards of the old Bible/’ 
(Mr. Watson alludes to the old binding, which he sent 
down to Mr. Shoemaker with the Bible in its new 
cover.) Mrs. Shoemaker very kindly sent the picture 
up from Baltimore for me to have a copy made. The 
house in the right-hand corner is the original one. On 
a large rock still stands a house, now known as the 
“Rock House,” which is probably one of the others 
we see ; most likely it was used as a tenement-house 
for the work-people. Of later years the Philadelphia 
and Reading Railroad, who own it, have had it plas- 
tered, thus covering the ancient stone-work. When 
the British forces had possession of Germantown 
during the Revolutionary War their cavalry occupied 
huts erected in the meadow around these houses. 

In the Bible the records which interest us most are, 
“AD 1678 2nd of October, the 10th Month, was born 
to me a daughter named Sarah Hendricks.” Another, 
“Isaac Shoemaker born in Cresheim Germany, mar- 
ried Sarah Hendricks, born in the same town, in Ger- 
many, but they were married in Philadelphia, Penna.” 
Another, “Isaac Shoemaker died the twelfth day of 
February 1732.” Another, “Sarah Shoemaker, his 
wife and Widow died the fifteenth day of June 1742.” 

Underneath these dates is this: “This is in the hand- 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


33 


writing of Benjamin Shoemaker, son of Isaac and Sarah 
Shoemaker, signed Benjamin Shoemaker, Grandson 
of ditto.” The various records of the issue of Isaac 
and Sarah Shoemaker are full and complete. In 
another portion of Mr. Watson’s letter, quoted above, 
he says, “They were all Friends, as I found by the 
Records of the Meeting, Isaac Schumacher contributed 
£ 6 6s., Peter Schumacher £6, Joab, (probably Jacob) 
£ 4. This to build the Meeting-House erected in 1705. 
Only four individuals gave more. In the Rolls office 
Philadelphia, Book A, page 275, are a list of sixty-four 
individuals, Foreigners, who are naturalized ; among 
them I see the names of Peter Schumacher, Peter 
Schumacher, Jr., Isaac Schumacher, & J. Schumacher. 
These with the others are naturalized under a certifi- 
cate from Thomas Lloyd, Deputy Governor, on the 
7th of third Mo., 1691, at which time they must have 
all been of full age, because they then promise ‘ faith 
and allegiance to William and Mary, fidelity and lawful 
obedience to Wm. Penn a Proprietary,’ and thence- 
forth are Freemen of the state, for the better securing 
of their Estates, real and personal. By an Act of 
Assembly in 1 708 on the Statute book all of the afore- 
mentioned 64 names, with some additional ones, are 
again declared naturalized.” These sixty-four names 
3 


34 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


are the ones alluded to in the last chapter, in the act, 
as having “subscribed the Declarations and Test by 
Law appointed.” 

Isaac was a tanner by profession, his yard being 
located on Main Street, just below where East 
Coulter Street now passes. On the corner of Shoe- 
maker Lane and Main Street he built, somewhere 
about 1725, a long two-story house of stone. After 
the manner of the old country, its main entrance was 
from the end towards the lane, but from the Main 
Street side there was a door-way into the cellar, which 
gave the appearance of a three-story dwelling. The 
picture we have of it was made by William Brittain, 
in 1831 ; he was a well-known drawing-master of the 
town. The original sketch was copied by Mr. C. J. 
Wister, and is here reproduced. In it the gate-way 
at the end plainly shows, while the lady looking over 
the wall gives an excellent idea of the height of the 
ground in the yard. The Conestoga wagon and 
stage-coach, on the turnpike, recall vividly the old- 
time scenes of the village. 

After the battle of Germantown the British used 
the house as a hospital, under the charge of Dr. 
Moore, whose patients filled every room. It remained 
in the family until purchased by the late George H. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


35 


Thompson, who tore it down in 1843, and erected on 
its site Cottage Row. Benjamin, a son of Isaac and 
Sarah, was invited to a seat in the Provincial As- 
sembly at the same time as James Hamilton ; after 
considering nearly two months, he determined to ac- 
cept, and was qualified Second month 4th, 1745/6. He 
was mayor of Philadelphia in 1743, 1751, and 1760, 
and from 1751 until his death in 1761, city treasurer. 

His son Samuel, on his father’s death, succeeded 
him as treasurer. He was also mayor two years, 1769 
and 1771, and served two terms in the Assembly, 1771 
and 1773. He likewise had other positions of trust. 

Like many Friends, he disapproved of the Revolu- 
tionary War, and as a consequence his property was 
confiscated. He went to New York, and was advised 
by Sir William Howe to return and make his peace 
with General Washington, but declined to do so. 
While there he was of much service to American 
prisoners. A portion of his time he spent in England, 
and had an interview with King George, under the 
auspices of his friend Benjamin West, who was under 
obligation to Samuel for encouragement in his art 
while a boy. The account of the interview with 
George III., as given in “ Papers of the Seventy-six 
Society,” is as follows: “In his first interview with the 


36 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


King, the King enquired, ‘ How is it, Mr. Shoemaker, 
that Pennsylvania is so much in advance of the other 
Provinces, though many of them were settled before 
it?’ ‘May it please your Majesty,’ responded the 
Quaker, with great courtliness, ‘I presume it is be- 
cause so many of the inhabitants are Germans, or of 
German birth,’ bowing at the same time to the Queen, 
who was a German by birth. The King showed by 
his manner that he was gratified by the compliment 
paid to his wife, and said, ‘ No, Mr. Shoemaker, it is 
no doubt because they are Quakers,’ thus, as Mr. 
Shoemaker subsequently remarked, ‘ fully returning 
the compliment.’ ” 

The royal couple were pleased he could speak Ger- 
man, and the queen wept when he spoke of the death 
of his children, so Samuel concluded so kind a hus- 
band and considerate a man could not be a tyrant. 
It was while he was in London at this time that his 
portrait was painted by Thomas Spence Duche, son 
of Parson Duche ; in it his son Edward appears with 
him. The portrait is owned by Mrs. Samuel M. 
Shoemaker, of Baltimore, who very kindly allowed 
me to have it copied. 

The following letter from Samuel’s wife endorses 
the faithfulness of the likeness. 



SAMUEL SHOEMAKER 

(1725-1800), 

MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, 1769, 

AND HIS SON, 

EDWARD SHOEMAKER. 


From the original portrait painted by Thomas Spence Duche, London, 1784, in the possession of the family 







THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


37 


Extract of letter, Fourth month 23rd, 1785, from 
Mrs. Rebecca Shoemaker to her husband, Samuel 
Shoemaker : 

“ But the most acceptable and truly valuable of our 
presents is T. Duche’s performance which is so perfect 
and striking as really to make one imagine we were 
looking at life. I do not think it possible to have 
drawn a portrait more like the original than thine is, 
and I also see Edward very like, but the different 
manner in which his hair is now worn from what he 
did in N York, makes a considerable alteration in his 
appearance, tho’ some of our friends think they should 
have known him anywhere. I see him in his usual 
free familiar attitude, leaning on the shoulder of a 
beloved parent. The design is exceeding easy and 
natural and much more pleasing than a single person 
in a formal stiff manner. B. S. [Benjamin Shoe- 
maker] and W. R. [William Rawle] who I think have 
both judgement, think it incomparable well done, and 
both design and execution would do honor to the 
pencil of West or any of the first painters in England. 
I think, with thee, Edward must be rather on too small 
a scale ; he looks in this about the size he was at 1 2 
or 13, but he is now 15, and three months, and every- 
body says is amazingly grown tall, and the appearance 


38 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


of a young man. However I have never seen better 
representations of the life anywhere, and until I have 
the originals you are to be with me, and then B. S. 
will choose to keep them. He has fixed you in our 
parlor in a good light. Thee knows there is always 
a variety of opinions in such matters and some think 
E. has an English complexion ; he has such a bloom. 
I suppose him to have walked from Tottenham Road, 
which has given him a color, and never was a com- 
plexion better imitated or represented than thine, as 
much as a pencil can make it,” etc. 

Samuel returned to this country in 1789, and got 
back a portion of his property, which was secured to 
him by the treaty of peace of 1783. He died in 
Philadelphia Tenth month 10th, 1800, in his seventy- 
sixth year. 

Benjamin West, in a letter to William Rawle, dated 
London, Newman Street, September 21st, 1805, refers 
to his death as follows : “ The death of my much 
respected friend Samuel Shoemaker I had heard of 
before I received your letter — and I am gratified to 
find that you are in possession of the Print of the 
Apotheosis of the King’s two children, which his 
Majesty commanded me to place in the hands of 
Mr. Shoemaker, as a token of the high respect His 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


39 


Majesty had for his character: the Print is very 
scarce.” 

During his residence in Philadelphia he built a fine 
country-seat in Germantown, on Main Street, above 
Washington Lane. This was erected about 1760. 
During the Revolutionary War it was filled with tailors 
and shoemakers, employed in making goods for the 
army. When the battle of Germantown took place 
much hard fighting occurred on the grounds ; the 
spring-house in the rear of the dwelling became a 
rallying-place for the Virginia troops, who sought in 
vain to retrieve the disasters of the day. A number 
who fell were buried near the spring in unmarked 
graves. An interesting incident was that regarding 
William Dolby, who at this spot had a fellow-comrade 
killed by his side. The event impressed upon him so 
forcibly the wickedness of war that he left the ranks, 
sought work with Thomas Livezey, the miller, on the 
banks of the Wissahickon Creek, and became a con- 
vert to Friends’ views. He removed to Delaware, 
and became a prominent and approved minister in the 
Society. 

Early in this century the property passed into the 
hands of James S. Duval, who gave it the name of 
“Pomona,” and in 1828 had the painting made, a 


40 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


copy of which is annexed. The last owner was Amos 
R. Little, who sold it a few years ago to parties who 
have since cut it up into building lots. A writer, in 
speaking of the time of Samuel, says, “ There are no 
names more cherished at home, and more deservedly 
known abroad, than those of Wister, Shoemaker, 
Muhlenberg, etc.” 

The late Samuel M. Shoemaker, of Baltimore, who 
stood very high in the community, and was extensively 
engaged in commercial enterprises, was a grandson of 
Samuel the mayor. From the line of Isaac and Sarah 
Hendricks Shoemaker descend what is known as the 
Shoemaker-Rawle-Pennington branch, which has been 
so fully worked up by Charles P. Keith in his “ Pro- 
vincial Councillors” that it is unnecessary for me to 
follow it further here. 



* 
























* 


s 















THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


4i 


CHAPTER VII. 

SUSANNA SHOEMAKER PRICE. 

Susanna, daughter and fifth child of George Shoe- 
maker, Sen., married on the fourth day of the First 
month, 1696, at the house of Richard Wall, according 
to the good order of Friends, Isaac, son of Philip 
Price. Witnesses, Wm. Jenkins, Richard Townsend, 
Richard Wall, John Roberts, Robert Owen, Howell 
James, David Llewellyn, Benj. Humphrey, Richard 
Hayes, Sami. Carter, Joshua Owen, Meredith Davis, 
and others. From this line came the late Eli K. Price, 
who, in a little volume entitled “The Family,” has 
traced out this branch of the family better and much 
more fully than I could, and to it those desiring in- 
formation are referred. A short extract is here given, 
as it shows that Susanna married a second time upon 
the death of her husband, Isaac Price ; but I have 
failed, in searching the Minutes of Friends’ Meetings 
or the Wills, at the Register’s, to learn further of the 
Cuerton marriage. The following is under date of 
Third month 14th, 1809: 


42 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


“I, Philip Price, of the Township of Darby, in the 
County of Delaware, and State of Pennsylvania, being 
now in the seventy-ninth year of my age, having chiefly 
resided in a different neighborhood from where my 
forefathers dwelt, I hereby take the opportunity for the 
satisfaction of my children, who have been brought up 
at a distance from where my connections lived, to give 
an account of their forefathers, so far as has come to 
my knowledge. I was born in the Township of Plym- 
outh, County of Montgomery, and State aforesaid, 
on the 5th of the nth month, 1730. My father and 
mother both died when I was young, under eight years 
of age. My great-grandfather, Philip Price, is the first 
of the family I have any account of. He came to this 
country pretty early, with the first Welsh settlers, but 
in old age. His wife’s, my great-grandmother’s, first 
name I never heard. They settled on a small place 
in Haverford, near where the Buck Tavern, on the 
Lancaster Road, now stands, about six miles from 
Philadelphia. My great-grandfather, when he was 
eighty-five years of age, married a second time, to 
Margaret Morgan, who was said to be twenty-five, 
and I have understood that they lived together about 
twelve years, before his decease. He died in 1719 
or 20. His widow lived until about the year 1774, 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


43 


My great-grandfather had one son, my grandfather, 
named Isaac, and two daughters, one of whom mar- 
ried Reese, of whom there was, and remains, a large 
family, the other a Lewis, of whom I have had but 
little account. My grandfather, Isaac Price, married 
Susanna Shoemaker, one of the first settlers, of the 
Shoemaker family, about Philadelphia, Abington, &c. 
They had three children, but he dying young in life, 
they were left orphans ; two of them daughters, Mary 
and Gwinn, who I expect died young, as I never had 
any account of them. My grandfather died in 1706. 
His widow afterwards married William Cuerton. 
They had three daughters, Rebecca, Rachel, and Su- 
sanna, all of whom grew up, as they were signers to 
my father’s marriage certificate, but I never had any 
account of their marriage. 

“ My father, Isaac Price, being left young, was bound 
an apprentice to Griffith Jones of Germantown. On 
the 4th month, 1729, he entered into the marriage 
covenant with Margaret Lewis, daughter of Henry 
Lewis, of Haverford. They lived in much love and 
harmony together until his death in the 4th month, 
1738. He was taken off with the small-pox, after a 
short illness. My mother died of consumption, about 
a month afterwards. I had a sister, who also died of 


44 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


the small-pox, soon after my father. I was the eldest 
child, about seven years old, being left with a younger 
brother, named Isaac, who was also removed by death, 
in his eighteenth year ; so that I was left alone, there 
being none of the name of Price descended from my 
great-grandfather besides myself and children. 

“ Signed Philip Price.” 

This Philip Price was the grandfather of the late 
Eli K. Price. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


45 


CHAPTER VIII. 

RICHARD WALL, SEN. 

As a direct ancestor of a numerous branch of the 
Shoemaker family, through the marriage of his only 
heir and granddaughter, Sarah Wall, to George Shoe- 
maker, Jr., as will appear later, and from the promi- 
nent position he occupied, Richard Wall is deserving 
of extended notice. Our earliest information of Rich- 
ard is from the Philadelphia Meeting Records, which 
state, “Richard Wall, his certificate was read in the 
Monthly Meeting of Philadelphia and accepted, which 
was given him by the Monthly Meeting held at y e 
house of Edward Edwards, of Stock Orchard in y e 
County of Glocester the 26th Day of the 4th Month 
1682, and subscribed by Charles Toney, Giles King, 
Edwd Waters, Joseph Underhill and several others. ,, 
It is probable that soon after receiving the certificate 
he sailed, and arrived in this country before William 
Penn. Bean, in his “ History of Montgomery County,” 
states, “There is little doubt Toby Leech gave the 
name to the Township of Cheltenham. From records 


46 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


it appears that Thos. Fairman, on ist of 7 Mo., 1683, 
surveyed for Patrick Robinson 200 acres of land ad- 
joining Richard Wall on Tacony Creek. They state 
this land is in the parish of Cheltenham. R. Wall also 
came from Gloucestershire, and arrived here 4 Mo. 
26th, 1682, and probably on the same vessel as Toby 
Leech. Before 1704 a road was laid out from T. 
Leech’s to Germantown, of which Thomas Godfrey 
complained, as it divided his land to disadvantage.” 
Bean has evidently got the date of arrival wrong, as 
it is the date of the certificate of removal. 

From the records at Harrisburg I learn that Richard 
Wall had several tracts of land granted to him in the 
years 1682, 1683, and 1684, in Philadelphia County, on 
the Quesenoming, now called Tacony Creek. I am 
inclined to think, from the names of the early settlers 
here, that this section was taken up by a little colony 
of English Friends from Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, 
England, and that the new settlement did not derive 
its name from a single individual, as Bean would have 
us believe. The amount of land Richard purchased 
was six hundred acres, most beautifully located in what 
is now the heart of Chelton Hills, and covered with 
many of the handsomest country-seats around Phila- 
delphia. I have little doubt that he built his house of 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY, 


47 


stone, and that it still stands, forming the rear or back 
buildings of Joseph Bosler’s dwelling. At this early 
day, before Friends had meeting-houses, it was custom- 
ary to use the dwellings of members of the Society for 
the purpose of holding religious exercises. Richard’s 
was selected for this purpose, being known as Dublin 
Meeting, afterwards as Abington. Some extracts from 
Meeting records show how closely Richard Wall was 
identified with the earliest attempts of Friends to 
organize as a religious body in Pennsylvania. The 
first Friends’ minutes begin as follows: “At y e first 
settling of Pennsylvania a general meeting was held 
at Salem about y e Affairs of the Church for both 
Jersies and Pennsylvania y e nth of 2 Mo 1682.” 

This was soon followed by, “At a Mo-Meeting of 
Friends in truth of the Inhabitants about Tookany & 
poetquesink Creeks, being meet together for y e Ser- 
vice of Truth, and y e better ordering and Governing 
of y e affairs of y e Church &c.” These Friends, on 
Tenth month 3rd, 1683, passed this minute: “ Monthly 
Meeting at the house of Sarah Seyers. At the re- 
quest of some ffriends belonging to this meeting; A 
meeting was settled near Cheltenham at the house of 
Richard Wall.” Thus, Richard’s house was one of the 
very earliest meeting-houses in Philadelphia County 


48 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


whose location can with certainty be ascertained, and 
if my surmises as to its identity are correct, the only 
one still standing. The “ Boarded Meeting-house,” 
erected in Philadelphia in the latter part of 1682, is 
spoken of, and, of course, antedates Richard’s, but its 
location is unknown, while the Bank Meeting was not 
built until 1685. 

In 1685 the Meeting at Richard’s was made a 
Monthly Meeting, as this minute shows: “12 Mo 23d 
1685. It is agreed that this Mo-Meeting for time to 
come shall be held at three several places, that is to 
say y e next to be held at y e house of Richard Walln, and 
y e next at John Harts, and y e next at Oxford & so on 
in course.” On Twelfth month 27th, 1687, “A paper 
was read this day Concerning trading with y e Indians 
with Rum, that none professing Truth practize it.” 
Another minute was, “9 Mo 24th, 1690, Cert to Richard 
Wall in order to travel towards Maryland.” This was 
no doubt a religious visit, or he would not have applied 
to the Meeting for a certificate. Another of interest, 
“ 10 Mo 28th, 1691, At this meeting was raised by way 
of subscription, for the use of William Bradford printer 
y e sum of £$ 8j 2 d." Another, “ 9 Mo 30th 1694, This 
Meeting have collected y e sum of ^36 17^ 10 d Towards 
y e building of y e new Meeting house in Philadelphia 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY, 


49 


which was delivered to Everard Bolton.” A most 
liberal contribution, when we consider how scarce 
money was in those days. 

So closely identified were these our ancestors with a 
noteworthy historical incident, that it must be an ex- 
cuse for placing it here in full. It was the first protest 
against slavery issued in this country. The original is in 
the possession of Friends, at Fourth and Arch Streets. 

“This is to the Monthly Meeting held at Rigert 
Worrels. These are the reasons why we are against 
the traffick of mens-body as followeth : Is there any 
that would be done or handled at this manner ? viz to 
be sold or made a slave for all time of his life ? How 
fearfull & fainthearted are so many on sea when they 
see a strange vessel, being afraid it would be a turck, 
and they should be tacken and sold for Slaves in 
Turckey. Now what is this better done as Turcks 
doe ? yea is it worse for them, wch say they are Chris- 
tians for we hear, that ye most part of such Negers are 
brought heither against their will & Consent, and that 
many of them are stollen. Now tho’ they are black, 
we cannot conceive there is more liberty to have them 
slaves, as it is have other white ones. 

“ There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men, licke 

4 


5o 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


as we will be done ourselves : macking no difference 
of what generation, descent, or Colour they are. And 
those who steal or robb men, and those who purchase 
them, are they not all alicke. Here is liberty of Con- 
science, wch is right & reasonable, here ought to be 
lickewise liberty of y e body, except of evildoers, wch is 
another case. But to bring men hither, or to robb and 
sell them against their will, we stand against. In 
Europe there are many oppressed for Conscience 
sacke ; and here there are many oppressed wch are of 
a black Colour. And we, who know that men must 
not comitt adultery, some doe comitt adultery in 
others, separating wifes from husbands, and giving 
then to others, and some sell the children of those 
poor creatures to other men. 

“ Oh ! doe consider well this thing, you who doe it, 
if you would be done at this manner? and if it is done 
according Christianity? you surpass Holland & Ger- 
many in this thing. This Mackes an ill report in all 
those Countries of Europe, where they hear off, that 
y e Quakers doe here handle men, Licke they handle 
there y e Cattle; and for that reason some have no 
mind or inclination to come hither. 

“ And who shall maintaine this your cause, or plaid 
for it? Truely we can not do so, except you shall 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


5i 


inform us better hereof, viz that Christians have liberty 
to practise this thing. Pray ! What thing in the world 
can be worse towarts us then if men should robb or 
steal us away & sell us for slaves to strange Countries, 
separating housband from their wife & children. Being 
now this is not done at that manner we will be done at, 
therefor we contradict & are against this traffick of 
men body. And we who profess that it is not lawful to 
steal, must lickwise avoid to purchase such things as 
are stolen, but rather help to stop this robbing and 
stealing if possible, and such men ought to be delivered 
out of y e hands of y e Robbers and set free as well as 
in Europe. Then is Pensilvania to have a good report, 
in stead it hath now a bad one for this sacke in other 
Countries. Especially whereas y e Europeans are de- 
sirous to know in what manner y e Quakers doe rule in 
their Province, & most of them doe loock upon us with 
an envious eye. But if this is done well, what shall 
we say is done evil ? 

“ If once these slaves (wch they say are so wicked 
and stubborn men) should joint themselves, fight for 
their freedom and handel their masters & mastrisses, 
as they did handle them before ; will these masters & 
mastrisses tacke the sword at hand & warr against 
these poor slaves, licke we are able to belive, some 


52 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


will not refuse to doe? or have these negers not as 
much right to fight for their freedom, as you have to 
keep them slaves? 

“Now consider well this thing, if it is good or bad? 
and in case you find it to be good to handle these 
blacks at that manner, we desire & require you hereby 
lovingly that you may inform us herein, which at this 
time never was done, Viz. that Christians have Liberty 
to do so, to the end we shall be satisfied in this point, 
& satisfie lickewise our good friends and acquaint- 
ance in our natif Country, to whose it is a terrour or 
fairfull thing that men should be handeld so in Pen- 
silvania. 

“ This is from our meeting in at Germantown, hold 
y e 1 8 of the 2 month 1688 to be delivered to the 
monthly meeting at Richard Warrels. 

“GERRET HENDERICKS* 

“DERICK OP DE GRAEFF -j* 

“Francis daniell PastoriusJ 
“Abraham op de graef”§ 

* Gerhard Hendricks, Isaac Shoemaker’s father-in-law. 

f Dirck Op den Graeff. 

J Francis Daniel Pastorius. 

I Abraham Op den Graeff. Peter Shoemaker, Jr., married Margaret 
Op den Graeff. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


S3 


The Germantown Friends having thus eased their 
consciences, the missive came before the Monthly 
Meeting, held at the house of “ Rigert Worrels.” The 
disposition which they made of it is as follows : 

“At our monthly meeting at Dublin y e 30 2 Mo 
1688, we having inspected y e matter above mentioned 
& considered it, we finde it so weighty, that we think 
it not Expedient for us to meddle with it here, but do 
rather comitt it to y e consideration of y e Quarterly meet- 
ing, y e tennor of it being nearly related to y e truth. 

“ on behalfe of y e monthly meeting. 

“ Signed, pr Jo. Hart.” 

It then passed to their next higher meeting, as 
follows : 

“This above mentioned was Read in our Quarterly 
meeting at Philadelphia, the 4th of y e 4mo. ’88, and 
was from thence recommended to the Yearly Meet- 
ing, and the above-said Derick and the other two 
mentioned therein, to present the same to y e above- 
said meeting, it being a thing of too great weight for 
this meeting to determine. 

“ Signed by order of the Meeting 

“Anthony Morris.” 


54 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


At the Yearly Meeting, held at Burlington the fifth 
day of Seventh month, 1688: 

“A paper being here presented by some German 
Friends, Concerning the Lawfulness and Unlawfulness 
of buying and Keeping of Negroes, It was adjudged 
not to be so proper for this Meeting to give a positive 
Judgement in the case, It having so general a relation 
to many other Parts, and, therefor, at present they 
forbear it.” 

It is not strange that these simple-hearted people, 
who had sacrificed so much in order to secure freedom 
and religious toleration, should have viewed with sor- 
row the wrong done their colored brethren, and they 
deserve great credit for the effort made against a 
wrong that baffled all attempts at its solution by our 
greatest statesmen for nearly two centuries. It is 
only just to the Society of Friends to state, that after 
recognizing the unrighteousness of slavery, the subject 
was continually brought up in their meetings until they 
cleared themselves of participating in its guilt by for- 
bidding members after 1774 holding slaves, and they 
never ceased protesting and using their influence 
against the institution until the Emancipation Procla- 
mation truly made “all men free and equal.” 

The protest is in the handwriting of Pastorius, and 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


55 


Whittier, in “The Pennsylvania Pilgrim,” aptly de- 
scribes his (Pastorius’s) despondency at its failure to 
produce results, and in it tells how his wife, Anna, 
comforts him by comparing it to a century plant, which 
they were then looking at. 


“‘See this strange plant its steady purpose hold, 

And, year by year, its patient leaves unfold, 

Till the young eyes that watched it first are old. 

“ 1 But some time, thou hast told me, there shall come 
A sudden beauty, brightness, and perfume, 

The century-moulded bud shall burst in bloom. 

“ * So may the seed which hath been sown to-day 
Grow with the years, and, after long delay, 

Break into bloom, and God’s eternal Yea 

“‘Answer at last the patient prayers of them 
Who now, by faith alone, behold its stem 
Crowned with the flowers of Freedom’s diadem. 

“ ‘ Meanwhile, to feel and suffer, work and wait 
Remains for us. The wrong indeed is great, 

But love and patience conquer soon or late.’ 

“‘Well hast thou said, my Anna!’ Tenderer 
Than youth’s caress upon the head of her 
Pastorius laid his hand. ‘Shall we demur 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


56 


11 * Because the vision tarrieth ? In an hour 
We dream not of the slow-grown bud may flower, 

And what was sown in weakness rise in power!’ 

14 Then through the vine-draped door whose legend read, 
‘ Procul este prophani !’ Anna led 
To where their child upon his little bed 

"Looked up and smiled. ‘Dear heart,’ she said, ‘if we 
Must bearers of a heavy burden be, 

Our boy, God willing, yet the day shall see 

‘“When, from the gallery to the farthest seat, 

Slave and slave-owner shall no longer meet, 

But all sit equal at the Master’s feet.’ ” 


A few years after the marriage of his grand- 
daughter, Richard Wall found his health failing and 
made his will, as follows: 

“In the name of God, Amen, the fifteenth day of 
the first month, Anno Domini 1697/8, I Richard Wall, 
being weak in body, but of perfect mind and memory, 
thanks be the Lord for it, do hereby make and ordain 
this my last Will and Testament, that is to say, Prin- 
cipally and first of all, I recommend my soul and spirit 
unto the hands of our faithful Creator and Saviour, 
my body to be buried in a Christian like, and decent 
manner, at the discretion of my dear wife, and execu- 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


57 


trix, and as to touching such worldly estate wherewith 
it hath pleased God to bless me in this wilderness, 
I dispose of the same in the following way and form. 
Imprimis, I do give and bequeath to Joan Wall my 
beloved wife, all mine estate, land, household goods, 
and movables, for the full term of her life, kindly 
desiring George Shoemaker to till and manure the 
said my land and plantation and to give the just half 
of the crops, or increase thereof to her the s d Joan 
Wall, and to keep and reserve the other half to him- 
self. My three cows, and one steer, she the said my 
dear wife, and he the said George Shoemaker, are to 
part and divide equally between both. To William 
Bulb I give and bequeath one heifer of a year old. 
After the decease of my aforesaid Joan Wall, I here- 
with give to my beloved grand-daughter, Sarah Shoe- 
maker, all and singular mine estate, land, plantation, 
household goods, and movables, by her fully to be 
possessed and enjoyed, But in case she the said my 
grand-daughter, Sarah, shall happen to dye without 
children and heirs of her body, then my last will and 
testament is that my land and w th all improvements 
thereof, shall be left to the disposal of the monthly 
meeting I now belong to, so that friends of the said 
meeting may do with the said land and plantation as 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


58 


they meet. Item I freely give and bequeath unto 
friends of Cheltenham Meeting a certain tract of land 
containing about six acres, lying and being at the 
South West end of the s d my plantation and this 
piece of land I give for a burying place, and for the 
only and sole use of friends of the now mentioned 
Cheltenham Meeting. And I do herewith constitute, 
make, and appoint, the above said my grand-daughter 
Sarah Shoemaker, my only Executor, requiring that 
this my last will and testament may in all points be 
accomplished, and fulfilled. In witness whereof I have 
hereunto set my hand and seal. 

“The mark of X Richard AA J all. 


“ Witnesses. 

“Saml Richardson. 
“Evan Morris. 
“Richard Townsend.” 


“ Philadelphia Feb 9th 1701. 

“Then personally appeared before me the within 
named Samuel Richardson and Richard Townsend and 
upon their Solemn affirmation, did declare they saw the 
within Richard Wall sign, seal, and publish, and declare 
the within writing to be his last Will and Testament, 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


59 


and that he was at the doing thereof of sound mind 
and memory to the best of their knowledge. 

“Before J Moore 

“ Register General .” 

There does not appear to have been an inventory 
filed, so that we do not know what his personal estate 
consisted of. It will be noticed as odd that in the first 
part of his will he speaks of his “ dear wife, and execu- 
trix,” and then at the end names “ Sarah Shoemaker, 
my only Executor.” To whom letters testamentary 
were issued I do not know, as the will was not pro- 
bated until three years after his death. It was, how- 
ever, quite customary in those days to retain wills a 
long time before taking them to the register’s. As the 
will was made eleven days before his death, I presume 
he was too weak to sign it, other than by making his 
mark, as it is scarcely likely he was unable to write. 

From the Abington Meeting Records I copy this : 

“Richard Wall Sr, Died i Mo 26th 1698, buried on 
the 28th at Cheltenham. 

“Joan Wall Died 12 Mo 2nd 1701, buried on the 4th 
at Cheltenham.” The burying-ground in which they 
were interred will be spoken of in a later chapter. 


6o 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


CHAPTER IX. 

RICHARD WALL, JR. 

Richard Wall, Sen., appears to have had only one 
child, a son, named after himself. In some notes left 
by the late Isaac Shoemaker, he states that Richard, Jr., 
married Rachel, sister to Toby Leech. While there is 
no way of proving this, it seems very probable, as the 
families came from the same place in England, and 
according to Holmes’s original map, first came two 
tracts of Wall’s land, then one of Leech’s, then one of 
Wall’s, then one of Leech’s, proving their close con- 
nection. 

From a survey returned into the surveyor’s office is 
the following : 

“ By order and direction from the Proprietor and 
Governor, the iothof the 9 Mo 1682. I hereby certify 
into his Secretary’s Office, that I have caused to be sur- 
veyed and set out the 30th of the 1st Mo unto Richard 
Wall Junr, Renter, One Hundred acres of land in the 
County of Philadelphia, in the township of Chelten- 
ham, Beginning,” etc., “from thence by land of Richard 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


61 


Wall Senr,” etc. This would prove he came over with, 
or about the same time as, his father. 

Richard Wall, Jr., died intestate, leaving an only 
child, Sarah, a minor, to whom all his estate descended. 
Richard Wall, Sr., took out letters of administration, 
dated Fourth month 20th, 1689. (See Administration 
Book A, page 63.) From the fact that the daughter, 
Sarah, was the only heir, it is fair to presume that his 
wife had died previously. 


62 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


CHAPTER X. 

SHOEMAKER BURYING-GROUND. 

It will be remembered that Richard Wall, Sen., in his 
will provided six acres for a burying-ground ; the spot 
he selected is beautifully located on Cheltenham Ave- 
nue, or, as the country folks called it in times past, 
Graveyard Lane. About a half-acre of the six left for 
the purpose is enclosed with a stone wall, and all in 
excellent order, thanks to the care and attention be- 
stowed on it by Robert Shoemaker and the trustees 
who have charge of it under appointment of the Meet- 
ing. Almost in the centre are two large box-bushes, 
under which tradition says lie the bodies of Richard 
Wall and Joan, his wife. The story further was that 
stones originally marked the spot, but I have failed to 
locate them, even if covered with earth, having probed 
with a long iron rod when the ground was soft to a 
depth of several feet. 

It is said a log meeting-house at one time stood 
alongside of the grounds. If this was so, all traces, 
even of the foundation, have gone, so it cannot be 


THE SHOEMAKER TAMIL Y. 


63 


verified. The grounds have always gone by the name 
of the Shoemaker Burying-Ground, but as we have 
seen in the will, it is not strictly a family one, though as 
a matter of fact the majority of those interred there 
bear the name or are allied to it by marriage. About 
one hundred and fifty years ago Cheltenham Meeting 
was absorbed by Abington Meeting, and since that 
time the ground has been held by trustees (special) ap- 
pointed by the Meeting. Of late few interments have 
taken place within its limits. The earliest stone is that 
of Isaac, dated Eighth month 23rd, 1741. 

Friends in those days did not approve of marking 
the last resting-place of the departed, so that there are 
comparatively few stones. For the following list of 
those named Shoemaker interred here I am indebted 
to Robert Shoemaker : 

“1741, 8 Mo 23d, Isaac, son of George & Sarah 
Shoemaker, aged 41. 

“1758, Elizabeth, wife of Isaac. [Not the Isaac 
above.] 

“ 1762, Amy, Widow of Abraham. 

“ 1 764, George, of ‘ Cheltenham/ 

“1764, Dorothy, widow of Isaac. [Daughter of 
Toby Leech, Jr.] 

“ 1764, Isaac. 


6 4 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


“ 1765, Elizabeth, daughter of Isaac. 

“ 1775, Benjamin, son of Isaac. 

“ 1775, Arnold. 

“ 1783, Elizabeth, daughter of Jonathan. 

“ 1 783, Sarah, daughter of George. 

“1779, Isaac, son of John & Elizabeth, aged 24. 
[See account below.] 

“ 1782, Susanna, wife of William. 

“ l 7 93> 3 Mo 17th, Mary, wife of Benjamin. 

“ 1793, 10 Mo 22nd, Benjamin, Jr. 

“1793, 11 Mo 14th, Mary Allen Shoemaker. 

“1793, 11 Mo 15th, Mary, wife of Thomas. [The 
writer’s great-grandmother.] 

“ij 95, 5 Mo 30th, Elizabeth, wife of John. 

“18 1 1, Benjamin. [His wife, Mary, died 1793, and 
was a Comly, of Byberry.] 

“ 1826, 8 Mo 1 2th, Mary, daughter of Thomas and 
Hannah, aged 20 years. 

“ 1827, Hannah, wife of Thomas. 

“ 1837, 2 Mo nth, Thomas, aged 74. [The writer’s 
great-grandfather.] 

“1841, n Mo, Ellis C., aged 21. [Brother of 
Robert.] 

“1852, 6 Mo 1 2th, Margaret (Bird), widow of 
Thomas. [He had three wives.] 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


65 


“1849, 12 Mo 23d, Martha (Leech), widow of 
Robert, aged 90. [Grandmother of Robert and Benja- 
min H. ; her husband died of yellow fever in 1795, and 
was interred in burying-ground Fourth and Arch 
Streets.] 

“1845, Sarah, widow of Comly. 

“ 1843, Comly, son of Benjamin & Sarah, aged 68.” 

This list is not by any means a complete one, as such 
has never been kept* but is made up simply of those 
names and dates Robert has been able to collect. 

Isaac, son of John and Elizabeth Livezey Shoemaker, 
who died in 1779, married Sarah Mather. In the 
Ridgway Branch of the Philadelphia Library (“2224 
Octavo Loganian 31”) is a curious pamphlet. It con- 
tains an account of the life and death of Isaac, which 
has been reprinted in “Piety Promoted.” Some ex- 
tracts are as follows: 

“About ten days before his decease he fell into a 
trance in the evening, and after laying for three hours, 
in a strong voice said, ‘ Oh ! that I could tell you what 
I have seen and underwent, it would pierce the hardest 
heart amongst you, perhaps some think there is no 
hell, but I have to tell you there is a hell, and a dread- 
ful one too, and the grinding of my teeth is nothing to 
the grinding and gnashing of teeth in hell. And there 
5 


66 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


is a heaven and a sweet one too, where angels clothed 
in white robes sit at the right hand of God, singing 
praises to his good name, I have to declare unto you at 
the peril of my soul, but some will not believe though 
an apostle should arise from the dead. You may think 
I am not in my senses, but I knew you all as you came 
into the room, am perfectly in my senses, and God 
hath opened my mouth on your account, and that you 
might declare it unto others. Narrow is the way that 
leads to life, and few there be that find it ; but broad is 
the way that leads to destruction and many are going 
that way/ etc. When all had left his room, he was 
heard (by friends in adjoining room) ‘ devoutly and 
loudly desiring that God might be pleased to stop the 
effusion of blood/ Time of the Revolutionary War. 
He died 7 mo. 31st, 1779, in the 25th year of his age.” 

Another curious incident attending the death of a 
member of the family I find related in “ Extracts from 
the Diary of Elizabeth Drinker,” page 208 : “Samuel 
Shoemaker, a son of Benjamin, of Abington, who died 
some time ago of the malignant fever (yellow) ; was 
thought dead by the attendant — who went out for his 
coffin, and on his return into the room where the corpse 
lay, found him sitting on the side of the Bed endeavor- 
ing to put his shoes on. He asked him where he was 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


67 


going, and was answered to take a walk ; but being de- 
sired to lay down and rest himself, he complied, and 
died in reality about an hour after. Had he remained 
as first found a quarter of an hour longer, A. Livezey 
who told ye story, thinks he would have been screwed 
in his coffin.” This Samuel was a brother of the 
writer’s great-grandmother, Mary Shoemaker. His 
death took place during the epidemic of 1 793, while his 
brother Robert died of the same disorder in 1795. 
Robert’s son, Richard M., related in after-years, that at 
the time his father lay dead he was very ill, and when 
the undertaker came to measure his father’s body he 
took his measure also, in order to save time, as he was 
a forehanded man. 


68 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


CHAPTER XI. 

GEORGE SHOEMAKER, JR. 

From here those whose lines are traced are de- 
scendants of George Shoemaker, Jr., the eldest of the 
emigrant children, who did not marry until he had 
been in this country eight years ; probably the burden 
of supporting his fatherless brothers and sisters came 
on him. When he did marry, he selected Sarah, 
granddaughter and only heir to Richard Wall, as 
before mentioned. The venerable old marriage cer- 
tificate is still in existence, having been handed down 
in the family. Its last owner was Dr. William L. Shoe- 
maker, of Georgetown, D.C. Recently he forwarded 
it to me to copy, photograph, and then deposit in the 
Pennsylvania Historical Society. This has all been 
done, and any who are interested can there see it. 
The doctor, in writing, very aptly describes its con- 
dition. He says, — 

“If you can photograph it, or cause it to be photo- 
graphed, pray do so, but handle it gently: it is old 
and weak : time hath dealt harshly with it. It is in 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


6 9 


its dotage, and stammers feebly an antiquated jar- 
gon, ‘according to the usage of the people of God 
called Quakers.’ Respect its wounds and bruises and 
awkward bandages, and when its likeness hath been 
taken, deposit it in my name in the Pennsylvania His- 
torical Society’s archives.” 

It is written on paper now yellow and tender with 
age; its size is seven and a half by twelve inches. 
The doctor had it carefully preserved by being framed 
between panes of glass, but before it had evidently 
been folded away, and the creases tore to a certain 
extent ; these have had strips of paper pasted over 
them in rather a careless manner, so that many of 
the signatures of the witnesses are obliterated, as 
most of them were on the back of the document, 
and the paper was naturally pasted there to preserve 
the face of the certificate. Thirty-two persons sign 
it, twelve in German, the rest in English. George 
signs it in his native script, while Sarah attaches her 
new name in a remarkably clear bold hand, spelling 
it Shewmaker, a curious variation from the mode in 
which her numerous descendants spell the respectable 
name. As appears below, the spelling in the docu- 
ment does not reflect any credit on the person who 
wrote it. It is as follows : 


7 ° 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


‘‘Whereas George Shewmaker & Sarah Wall, both 
of the Townfhip of Cheltenham, in the Countey of 
philldelfia, Haveing declared theyre Intentions of take- 
inge each other as husband & wife ; before feverall 
publique men & womens meetings of the people of 
god called Quakers ; accordinge to the good orders 
used Amongst ; them whofe proceedings therein ; 
After deliberate consideration thereof, & consent of 
parteys & Relations Concerned & Approved by the 
faid meetings : Now thefe are \torn\ to all whom it 
may concern ; that for the full determination of theire 
fayd Intentions This fourteenth day of the Twelf 
month one thousand fix hundred ninety & four they 
the fayd George Shewmaker & Sarah Wall Apeared 
in A follemne Afsembley of ye Aforefaid people mett 
together at the house of Richard Wall, in the Towne- 
ship of Cheltenham aforefaid Accordinge to the ex- 
ample of the Holy men of god Recorded in the 
fcriptures of truth. He the Aforesyd George Shew- 
maker takeinge Sarah Wall by the Hand openly 
declared as followeth, Friends in ye presence of god 
and you His people; I doe take Sarah Wall to be 
my wife promifinge to be a faithful loveing husband 
till death doth Seperate us 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 




And then & there in the fayd Assembly the fayd 
Sarah Wall did in the like manner [torn] as fol- 
loweth, Friends in ye prefents of god & you his 
people, I doe take George Shewmaker to be my 
husband promifeing to be a faythfull Loveinge wife 
till death doth feperate us. And the fd George Shew- 
maker & Sarah Wall as A further confirmation thereof 
did then & there to these presents sett [torn] there- 
unto & we who where present at the follominizinge 
of their Marriage, did with our hand fubscribed our 
names the day & year above written. 

“George Schumacher. 

“Sarah Shewmaker. 


“Peter Schumaker 
“Johannes Koester 
“ Peter Cassell 
“ Samuel Richardson 
“Toby Leech 


Sara Schumaker.* * * § 

Sara Eaton f 
Susanna Schumackerin J 
Sara Schumacher § 
Elizabeth Koester 


* Sarah Schumacher, the mother of George. 

f Sara (Schumacher) Eaton, cousin of Peter Shoemaker, who married 
Edward Eaton. 

X Susanna Schumackerin, George’s sister, who afterwards married 
Isaac Price. 

§ Sara (Hendricks) Shoemaker, wife of Isaac Shoemaker, and sister- 
in-law of George. 


72 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


“Richd Townsend 
“Everard Bolton 


Elizabeth Lind 
Maria Canby 


“John Russell 
“Samuel Carl 
“Thomas Canby 
“Joseph Phips 
“Joseph Phips Jr 
“Powell Richardson 
“William Loutledge.” 

Abington Meeting Records contain this notice of the 
marriage : 

“Shoemaker, George & Sarah Wall both of Chel- 
tenham twp at a meet at the H of Richard Wall. Wit 
Richard Wall, Jacob, Peter Sr, & Peter Jr Shoemaker, 
Richard Townsend, Joseph Phips, & many others.” 

George and Sarah seem to have started out in life by 
purchasing one hundred acres of land from Toby Leech, 
Third month 7th, 1694/5, and no doubt becoming 
farmers. Just where this tract lay cannot now be well 
determined, but it was close to the other land of the 
family. 

A few years later, when the Wall property passed 
into the possession of George Shoemaker, the place 
began to be known as Shoemaker’s, and as a little vil- 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


73 


lage grew up it naturally took on the name of Shoe- 
makertown, so many of the name living there. Just 
at what date this was done it is hard now to tell, but 
it was no doubt in the beginning of the last century, 
and well did it serve its purpose for close on to two 
hundred years. 

In 1889, however, some new-comers to the place, 
without veneration for the past, and with little regard 
for its appropriateness, succeeded in having the mean- 
ingless name Ogontz substituted. An effort was made 
by various members of the family to influence the au- 
thorities at Washington to retain the old name, but 
they declined to accede to the wishes thus expressed. 
In this manner old names, full of historic interest and 
associations, are done away with to make room for 
others supposed to be more euphonious. 

George Shoemaker, Richard Wall’s son-in-law, was 
a prominent man in his time, and was in 1 7 1 1 appointed 
a commissioner in the laying out of the York Road, 
which ran in front of his house. He had by his first 
wife, Sarah Wall, six children: Abraham, born Fifth 
month 15th, 1697; Isaac, born 1700; Jacob, Elizabeth, 
and George, whose dates of birth are unknown ; and 
Richard, born Sixth month 26th, 170 7. 

Elizabeth married James De la Plain, First month 


74 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY, 


25th, 1728, but she died before her father, leaving two 
children, named Nehemiah and Sarah De la Plain. I 
have failed to trace the line further. The other chil- 
dren of George and Sarah will be spoken of later. 

After the death of Sarah, George married a German 
woman, by whom he had the following children : Kath- 
arine, Sarah, Barbara, Susan, Arnold, Mary, and Sam- 
uel. There is not much known of this marriage, not 
even the last name of Christiana. It is probable they 
were married out of Meeting, as there is no mention 
of it in the records. The late Benjamin Hallowed 
wrote the following on the subject : “ George Shoe- 
maker then married a German woman, named Catha- 
rine, who lived in the family before the death of his 
first wife. Catharine appears to have been a fine, 
strong-constitutioned woman, but his first wife’s rela- 
tions thought the marriage a coming down, and they 
did not receive * Katie,’ as she was called, into their 
society, at first particularly.” In speaking further on 
of his different lines of ancestors, he says, “ It will be 
observed that my parents are from the same ancestor, 
George Shoemaker, but my mother from Sarah Wall 
of the English Aristocracy, and my father from Catha- 
rine, a German Redemptionist. So I have English 
blood, Welsh blood (the origin of fixedness of purpose) 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY, 


75 


and a double portion of Dutch, giving endurance, and 
I value that from Katie most of all, as giving a large 
frame and a strong constitution.” Benjamin Hallowed 
will be spoken of farther on. 

It will thus be seen that George had by his first wife 
six children and by the second seven, so that it is not 
to be wondered at if his descendants are numerous. 
In all probability the property left by Richard Wall 
went to the first set of children, and that the others 
scattered to a greater or less extent. The various lines 
I am most familiar with go back to the first marriage. 

Of the second marriage was Sarah, her mother, of 
course, being Christiana. She married First month 
17th, 1736, Anthony, son of John Williams, a grandson 
of the emigrant John, who in 1690 came to this coun- 
try from Wales. The marriage certificate of John and 
Sarah Shoemaker Williams is now in the possession of 
Mrs. Charles E. Trump, of Germantown. They had 
eighteen children, and the numerous persons bearing 
the name, designated often as the “Limekiln Road” 
Williams, came from this marriage. 

A couple of Revolutionary War incidents are re- 
membered in connection with Anthony which are inter- 
esting. He owned at that period a remarkably fine 
team of three young and spirited horses. While the 


76 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


driver was on his way home with them attached to an 
empty wagon, an officer leaped in and told him the 
team was confiscated, and to drive to a certain point. 
Now, they were within a few miles of home, so it needed 
a very slight administration of encouragement, given 
on the sly, to start them into a fast gait, while the pre- 
tended heroic efforts of the driver to stop them only 
added to their speed, until they finally broke into a 
run, when the officer, believing himself to be in great 
danger, leaped out, after which the man quieted the 
horses down and took them the rest of the way safely. 
At another period, just before the battle of German- 
town, during a British raid through the country, they 
visited the Williams farm and took from the stable a 
very fine riding-horse, which was a great favorite and 
pet of Anthony’s. Nothing more was heard of him for 
quite a period of time, when it was learned that he was 
in the possession of a British officer. A short time 
after the battle, in the middle of the night, a familiar 
whinny was heard at Anthony’s window, when the fact 
was revealed that the horse had in some way escaped 
during the fight and found his way home, where he re- 
ceived a warm welcome. Several wounded soldiers 
later came to the house for assistance, one dying on 
the premises. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


77 


Another descendant of George and Christiana Shoe- 
maker was Samuel Shoemaker, who lived at Tenally- 
town, D.C. While he has probably long since departed, 
I believe his descendants still remain in the town. 

George Shoemaker died intestate in 1741, when let- 
ters of administration on his estate were granted on 
Sixth month 2nd, 1741, to Abraham and Isaac Shoe- 
maker, Christiana, his wife, having renounced her right 
to act. I presume he was buried in the Shoemaker 
Burying-Ground, but the list we have fails to note it. 
Christiana died in Ninth month, 1747. 


78 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


CHAPTER XII. 

ABRAHAM SHOEMAKER. 

Abraham Shoemaker was the eldest son of George, 
Jr., and Sarah Wall Shoemaker, and was born Third 
month 1 6th, 1697. He was no doubt named for his 
uncle Abraham, one of the emigrant children, and mar- 
ried First month 26th, 1722, Amelia Livezey (spelled in 
Abington Meeting Records “ Amely Leusley”). Abra- 
ham and Amelia have left a long line of descendants ; 
among them was Benjamin, a son, who married Mary 
Comly, and who are spoken of later as the grandparents 
of Benjamin Hallowell ; they were the parents of Robert, 
also of Mary, who married her second cousin Thomas. 
(She was the writer’s great-grandmother.) 

Robert, mentioned above, was the father of Richard 
M. Shoemaker, one of the best-remembered residents 
of Shoemakertown, whose great old-fashioned country 
store was the wonder of the country folk, containing 
as it did everything, “ from a needle [almost] to an 
anchor.” It was opened about the beginning of the 
present century and continued until about 1856. His 


ir* 



ROBERT SHOEMAKER. 






THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


79 


house of stone still stands nearly opposite the toll- 
gate, but now subdivided into three small dwellings. 
Richard M. was the father of Robert, Benjamin H., 
and Charles B. Shoemaker, prominent business-men in 
Philadelphia, and connected with numerous charitable 
and fiduciary institutions. They are often designated 
as the “Fourth and Race Streets” Shoemakers. Rob- 
ert seems to have been the only one of his and the 
preceding generations of George and Sarah’s line 
who took any interest in preserving records of this 
branch. 

Living as he has most of his life on part of the 
original tract owned by Richard Wall, and being inter- 
ested in family history, he saved much valuable infor- 
mation, particularly that of a local character, which it 
is now impossible to obtain from any recorded source. 
This knowledge and his assistance is ever cheerfully 
given to all applicants who are desirous of tracing out 
their family lines. Many were the stories told by the 
old residents about the war times, when the British and 
Americans alternately held possession of the country. 
Martha Leech Shoemaker, Robert’s grandmother, used 
to tell him that after the battle of Germantown a party 
of redcoats (the old lady always called them redcoats) 
chased an American soldier up the York Road and 


So 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


down past their place (the old Leech house). He took 
a short cut across their lawn and over their porch, in 
an attempt to put the house between himself and his 
pursuers. As he crossed the porch they fired, but he 
kept on and plunged into the Tacony Creek, close 
at hand, and she was never able to learn whether he 
escaped or was killed. At another time a party with 
the same-colored coats made a raid up the York Road 
and paid them a visit. It was just after the Seventh- 
day’s baking was done, and the tables were loaded with 
pies and bread. Coming into the house and finding 
this plenteous spread suited their appetites exactly, 
they were not long in cleaning everything up. They 
then made a search for the Hour-barrel, and taking all 
the flour there was, they continued their raid until 
they reached the pigsty; here they captured the fam- 
ily’s supply of winter pork, and being satisfied with the 
varied assortment of edibles, departed without molest- 
ing the family. 

Another line of Abraham and Amelia was that of a 
son William, who on Tenth month 20th, 1750, married 
Susanna Richardson. They had eleven children. Wil- 
liam was a large land-owner, and entailing his estate led 
to a lawsuit by his grandson Lewis, in 1833, to try and 
recover the lot on the southwest corner of Ninth and 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


8 1 


Arch Streets, in which the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- 
vania nonsuited him. 

Abraham, a son of this William, married Third 
month 3rd, 1780, Deborah Musgrave, the ceremony 
being performed at Christ Church by Bishop White. 
This act led to his loss of membership in the Society 
of Friends. He was a prominent lawyer and well- 
known man in Philadelphia, and a witness to Benjamin 
Franklin’s will. The issue of this marriage was twelve 
children ; one, Lewis, spoken of above, owned a sugar 
plantation in Matanzas, where he died Second month 
3rd, 1838. From another son comes Francis, well 
known in Philadelphia, who has the distinction of 
being the eldest son of the eldest, from the emigrant 
George, who died at sea. 


6 


82 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


CHAPTER XIII. 

TOBY LEECH. 

Toby Leech became an ancestor of a large num- 
ber of the Shoemaker family through the marriage 
of Isaac Shoemaker to Dorothy Leech. Toby Leech 
appears to have been a man of much prominence in 
those days. He arrived here in 1682, probably, as 
Bean surmises, with Richard Wall. He seems to 
have had large means, from the extent of his landed 
holdings and the various branches of business he 
engaged in. In a deed he is described as “ Gentle- 
man while in a book of his still in existence is his 
signature and a motto in Latin, written in a business- 
like hand. He took up six hundred and four acres 
of land in Cheltenham, under warrant, for which a 
patent was issued to him Eighth month 9th, 1706; in 
addition, he owned several thousand acres in other 
sections of the State, a part being a large portion of 
Reedy Island. At Cheltenham he had a grist-mill, 
tan-yard, and ovens where he baked sea-biscuit, which 
he hauled to the city and sold to the shippers. His 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


83 


house is still standing. The photograph of it I made 
during the past summer. Between the house and the 
road runs the old mill-race, whose waters are still 
used by what is now a fork-factory, just below. Buck, 
in his “ History of Montgomery County,” says, “ The 
old mansion still stands, and is now the property of 
John Thomson. As may be expected, at this period, 
it presents a unique and venerable appearance. It 
is of stone, two stories high, forty-two feet long, and 
from twenty-four to thirty-five feet in width. The 
heavy oak balustrades of the stairway and the singular 
architecture of the arch entrance leading from the 
hall into the parlor impress one with their antiquity.” 
The bricks used for the chimneys were brought from 
England, while the heavy oak joists were cut from the 
primeval forests. Toby and his son (Toby, Jr.) signed 
the remonstrance addressed to Governor Markham, 
March 12th, 1697. Toby, Sen., sat in the Assembly 
1713, T4, T5, T7, and ’19. It has been claimed for 
him that he built the first brick house in Philadelphia, 
corner of Second Street and Church Alley; but I 
very strongly doubt if this was the first in the city. 

I think there is little question that Toby was a 
member of the Church of England, and never be- 
longed to Friends. Certainly all efforts to find his 


8 4 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


name mentioned in their minutes have failed. It has 
been stated that he gave the ground on which Trinity 
Church, Oxford, stands. This I have little doubt is 
an error. It has always been understood that when 
George Keith left the Society of Friends some of his 
followers took the meeting-house they had been using 
to worship in. Keith himself speaks of it as follows : 
“The place at Franckfort in Pennsylvania,” — alias 
Oxford, as he had before written it, — “ where the con- 
gregation assembles on the Lord’s day, is called 
Trinity Chapel. It was formerly a Quaker meeting 
house built or fitted by Quakers, but some time ago 
had been given to the church by such who had the 
right to it.” Rev. Evan Evans, for many years min- 
ister of Christ Church, Philadelphia, wrote, in 1707, 
to the “ Society” — in England — “ for the Propagation 
of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,” in which letter he 
says, “Trinity Church in Oxford Township, lies in 
the County of Philadelphia, 9 miles from the City, 
where for the first four years after my arrival in Phila- 
delphia, I frequently preached, and administered both 
the sacraments, and had when I preached in it, about 
140 people — most of the people brought over to the 
Church of England from Quakers, Anabaptists, and 
other persuasions.” 


THE SHOEMAKER TAMIL Y. 


85 


Mr. Evans arrived in Philadelphia in 1700; so there 
were both a church and congregation there at least as 
early as that date ; and as the trouble with Keith 
arose about 1690 or 1691, if the congregation began 
worshipping at once, this parish would antedate that 
of Christ Church, Philadelphia, by several years. 
Toby Leech took an active part in the affairs of the 
Church, his tombstone being one of the oldest there. 
It reads : 

“ In memory of Toby & Hester Leech who came from 
Cheltenham in Gloucester, England in the year 1682 
Toby 13 Novbr 74 

died 1727 years 

Hester 11 Augst 66” 

His son Isaac Leech, who died in 1744, lies in the 
same place. On his stone is the following epitaph : 

“ I tried the strength of death at length 
And here lie under ground ; 

But I shall rise, above the skies, 

At the last trumpet’s sound.” 


Jacob, the brother of Isaac, has on his stone this : 


He was of eight born last save one, 
And one survives him now alone. 
Thus life and death succeed for ages, 
Until the final judgement day,” 


86 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


Besides the offices named, Toby was a juror for the 
laying out of the York Road in 1 7 1 1 , and a county 
commissioner in 1718. On April 19, 1705, he bought 
from George and Sarah Wall Shoemaker two hundred 
acres of land for fifty-five pounds, — about a dollar and 
a quarter per acre. 

His will is long and voluminous. To his wife he 
wills all his cash and a silver tankard and spoons, also 
forty pounds per annum during “ her pure widowhood,” 
also his negro Cate for her own proper use, “ to dispose 
of as she seems fit.” The whole number of slaves he 
wills is eight, while the land amounts to some thousands 
of acres. 

It is a little remarkable that while Richard Wall was 
so actively identified with the first efforts to establish 
the Society of Friends in Philadelphia, Toby Leech, 
another ancestor of this branch, was equally connected 
with that of the Church of England. It would be in- 
teresting to know positively whether this was the first 
parish of this Church in Philadelphia County, but it is 
difficult to positively arrive at the facts. Dorothy Leech 
apparently became a Friend when she married Isaac 
Shoemaker, so that none of Toby’s Shoemaker de- 
scendants were ever members of Trinity Church, 
Oxford, at least in early times. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


87 


CHAPTER XIV. 

ISAAC SHOEMAKER. 

As mentioned in the last chapter, Isaac, the second 
son of George, Jr., and Sarah Wall Shoemaker, mar- 
ried Sixth month 28th, 1727, Dorothy, daughter of 
Toby, Jr., and Hannah Leech. Isaac was named, no 
doubt, after his uncle, George’s brother, spoken of in 
Chapter VI. 

Isaac died young, and there is little of interest known 
of him ; but what he lacked in this particular is made 
up by his wife, Dorothy, who proved herself worthy of 
her ancestry, and fully capable of caring for herself and 
children after the loss of her husband, as the following 
agreement testifies to : 

“Articles of Agreement, mutually made, concluded 
and agreed upon, ye sixth day of November, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand and seven hundred and 
forty-six, between Dorothy Shoemaker, of Cheltenham, 
in ye County of Philadelphia, in ye Province of Pensil- 


88 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


vania, widdow, on ye one part, Richard Mathers in ye 
s’d county, yeoman, of ye second part, and John Tyson, 
of Abington in ye s’d county, yeoman, of the third 
part, witnesseth that there is a proposition made be- 
tween ye s’d parties for building or erecting on ye land 
now in ye tenure or possession of ye said Dorothy 
Shoemaker, in ye said Township of Cheltenham, a 
corn-grist water-mill, to be built jointly, and in partner- 
ship, between ye said parties, — that is to say the one 
moiety or half part of ye s’d mill, mill-race, and dam to 
be at ye cost and charge of ye said Dorothy Shoe- 
maker, her heirs, exs, and adms, and one quarter or 
fourth part of ye s’d mill, mill-race and dam to be at 
ye cost and charge of ye s’d Richard Mathers, his heirs, 
exs, adms, and the other quarter or fourth part of ye 
s’d mill, mill-dam and race to be at ye cost of ye s’d 
John Tyson, his heirs, exs, adms, and in like manner 
ye premises to be so kept in repair, as the same may 
require from time to time forever by ye s’d parties in 
like manner as is above mentioned thereof, and it is 
agreed unto that the land allotted for building ye s’d 
mill on, and for other conveniences about ye s’d mill 
(ye race and dam excepted) is to begin at Toxony 
Crick, opposite ye said Dorothys present garden, at ye 
place of s’d crick, commonly called and known by the 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


89 


name of ye Sheeps Washing-Place, and from thence to 
extend down ye East side of ye s’d crick, to the ford- 
ing place of s’d crick in York Road, and to extend 
eastward from ye s’d crick so far as to take in one acre 
of land, in such manner as ye s’d undertakers shall 
judge most suitable for ye convenience of passing to 
and from ye s’d mill. And it is also agreed unto that 
the dam for handling water, and ye race from ye s’d 
dam to ye mill for carrying of water, to ye s’d mill, 
shall be made and cut through ye other land in ye 
possession of s’d Dorothy Shoemaker, for ye prive- 
lege of Which and privilidge of both runs of water and 
ground for ye benefit of ye s’d mill. And ye s’d par- 
ties do promise and hereby oblige themselves, their 
heirs, exs, or adms, to, pay unto ye Admr of Isaac 
Shoemaker, late of Cheltenham, blacksmith, deceased, 
for the use of his heirs, the sum of thirty pounds cur- 
rent money of Pensilvania, — that is to say, ye s’d Dor- 
othy Shoemaker shall allow the sum of fifteen pounds 
towards ye s’d sum, and ye s’d Richard Mathers shall 
pay unto ye s’d admr. the sum of seven pounds and 
ten shillings, money of Pensilvania, and ye s’ John 
Tyson shall pay unto ye s’d admr. ye sum of seven 
pounds and ten shillings, which s’d two last sums of 
seven pounds and ten shillings is to be paid by ye s’d 


9 o 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


Richard Mathers and John Tyson as soon as ye s’d 
mill shall be ready to run. 

“ And it is further agreed unto by and between ye s’d 
parties that ye s’d mill when made shall be tended as 
miller and boulter, by such person as ye s’d Dorothy 
Shoemaker, her heirs, exs, or adms, shall from time to 
time appoint at ye common share, as is usual at other 
mills to be allowed for that trouble to millers, and ye 
s’d Dorothy Shoemaker, for her heirs, exs, and adms, 
and ye s’d Richard Mathers, for himself, his heirs, exs, 
and adms, doth promise to use their utmost endevours 
to procure (when ye heirs of ye s’d land whereon ye 
s’d mill shall be erected and stand with ye other land 
and privelegs above mentioned for ye benefit of ye s’d 
mill) a good sufficient deed of conveyance thereof to 
be made to ye s’d Dorothy Shoemaker, Richard Math- 
ers, and John Tyson, to hold to them, to the use of them 
their heirs and assigns forever. And it is also further 
agreed unto by and between ye said parties that ye s’d 
Dorothy Shoemaker, her heirs, exs, adms, or assigns 
shall hold and enjoy one-half of ye s’d mill and profits 
thereof forever ; and that ye s’d Richard Mathers and 
John Tyson shall hold the other moiety or half part of 
ye s’d mill and profits thereof to ye use of them, their 
heirs, and assigns, in severalty, — whereof the s’d par- 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


9i 


ties to these presents have hereunto set their hands 
and seals. 

“ Dated ye day and year above written. 

“ Sealed and Delivered in the presence of 

“Dorothy Shoemaker Richard Mathers 
“Abygail Jenkins John Tyson 

“Steph Jenkins.” 

The site selected for the mill was some three hun- 
dred feet from Dorothy’s house, which I have supposed 
to have been built by Richard Wall, while the race ran, 
and still does, between the house and the mill. Richard 
Mather married Dorothy’s cousin, Sarah Penrose, in 
1727, but who John Tyson was I do not know. 

The presence of the mill undoubtedly had much to 
do with the growth of the little town, as it became a 
centre for the surrounding population, who here found 
a market for their wheat and corn. When running full 
time it had a capacity of one hundred barrels of flour 
a day. On Sixth month 14th, 1752, John Shoemaker 
bought the one-quarter interest of John Tyson. He 
was the eldest son of Dorothy, and twenty-six years old 
at the time. When Richard Mather’s interest was pur- 
chased by the family I do not know. 

Dorothy died in Eighth month, 1764. Her will is 


9 2 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


No. 87, Book N, page 174. She left her estate 
equally between her children, John, Isaac, Thomas, 
Joseph, Esther, and Sarah. To her son-in-law, Nathan 
Sheppard, she gave ten pounds, and named her sons 
John and Isaac her executors. John took out letters 
testamentary, Isaac being deceased.* 

Moses, son of Nathan and Sarah Shoemaker Shep- 
pard, moved to Baltimore, and became a wealthy and 
prominent man in business circles. Being unmarried, 
he left his large estate to found the hospital which 
bears his name in that city. 

* The fact that there were at this time two Isaac Shoemakers presum- 
ably about the same age, one of whom died in 1740 and the other in 
1741, both of whom married granddaughters of Toby Leech, who were 
each named Dorothy, — viz., Dorothy, daughter of Toby, Jr., whom we 
have above, and Dorothy Penrose, daughter of Bartholomew and Hes- 
ter Leech Penrose, married in 1722, — leads to confusion unless very 
carefully investigated by any one following up these lines. Robert Shoe- 
maker in his list of interments has been led into error, as he states Isaac, 
who died in 1741, was a son of George and Sarah Shoemaker. It was 
their son who died in 1740, and whose widow built the mill. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


93 


CHAPTER XV. 

DESCENDANTS OF ISAAC AND DOROTHY SHOEMAKER. 

The mill passed into the possession of Dorothy’s 
two grandchildren, John and Charles, sons of John 
Shoemaker. Their houses still stand, Charles’s being 
owned and occupied by Joseph Bosler. The rear of 
the house, as I have stated before, was undoubtedly 
Richard Wall’s, while the front was added by Charles : 
a most charming old home it is. From Charles de- 
scend the Taylor-Hinchman branch, while a son, Charles 
H. Shoemaker, carried the name to Richmond, Indiana. 

John’s house, which stands across the York Road 
from Charles’s, was a beautiful place in its day, and is 
now owned by George M. Fox. John and his wife, 
Jane Ashbridge Shoemaker, were very prominent 
members of the Society of Friends and both ministers. 
Their house was always open and the “head-quarters” 
for travelling Friends, who ever found a hearty wel- 
come within its hospitable doors. A story is told of a 
Friend who was being shown through the garden, and 
who turned to his host and said, “What, John! all this 
and heaven beside !” John and Jane, while they had no 


94 


THE SHOEMAKER TAMIL Y. 


children of their own, were very fond of them, and 
would invite those of the neighbors to a little party, 
when they would have a treat of fruit and cake and 
other luxuries, which were served on the lawn ; and 
some of the old residents can even now remember how 
John would go around and shake hands with and speak 
to the various youngsters. They were much beloved 
by all their neighbors for their many kindly acts. Jane 
was almost like a mother to her three little half-or- 
phaned cousins, Nathan, Ann, and Martha Shoemaker, 
who, after they grew up, felt and appreciated the great 
debt they owed her. 

On April i, 1847, and dwelling passed out 

of the possession of the family into that of its new 
owner, Charles Bosler, whose son Joseph runs the mill, 
but it has been so altered and modernized as to bear 
little resemblance to what it originally was. 

Other grandchildren of Dorothy were David and 
Jonathan Shoemaker, who removed to Georgetown, 
D.C., in the early part of this century, where their 
descendants now are ; one, Dr. William L. Shoe- 
maker, is a poet of note ; another, Julien Shoemaker, 
resides in Philadelphia, and is a member of the J. B. 
Lippincott Company. David was drowned at about 
the age of seventy, while swimming in the Potomac 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


95 


in company with President Adams. Jonathan held 
a number of positions of public trust; among them 
was that of a member to revise the Constitution of 
Pennsylvania. His appointment reads as follows : 

“ Please take notice that you are Elected and re- 
turned as a Member of the Convention for the County 
of Montgy 

“ [seal.] 

“ Alexander Sollers [seal.] 

“ Isaiah Davis, [seal.] 

“October 14th 1789 

‘‘Jonathan Shoemaker, Esqr.” 

While residing in Northumberland County he was 
justice of the peace, and among his papers was found 
the following interesting document: 

“ ( Circular ) 

“ Sir 

“I have received creditable information that, in the 
beginning of the present month, a party consisting of 
a Surveyor and four hands who were understood to be 
in the employment of persons claiming under the Con- 
neticut title, were on the Pennsylvania line in the neigh- 
borhood of the 129 mile stone, intending to make a 
survey and run off six townships of land within the ter- 
ritorial boundaries of this State. It is suggested, like- 


9 6 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


wise, that another party had been previously out with 
a similar view, but were returned to the Susquehanna. 
Under these circumstances, it is incumbent upon me to 
repeat my urgent request, that most vigilant attention 
may be paid to enforce the law for preventing any in- 
trusion upon lands within the Pennsylvania jurisdiction. 
I am persuaded the authority, prudence and energy of 
the Magistrates, will be competent to prevent, or punish 
the evil ; but if any lawless violence or opposition 
should arise, which they cannot effectually suppress and 
repel, I have instructed Brigade-Inspectors of Luzerne, 
Lycoming, Northumberland, and Northampton to fur- 
nish, on the request of the Magistrates such aid from 
the Militia, as the exigency of the case shall from time 
to time require. The peace, harmony, and honor of 
our Government, may probably, depend upon a tem- 
porate but firm resistance of any attempt to violate the 
territorial rights, and legislative provisions of the State ; 
and the Solicitude which the Legislature has expressed 
upon the Subject, claims from me and from every public 
officer, a zealous co-operation. It is my wish, therefor 
that the Judges of the Common Pleas, the Justices of 
the Peace, and the other public officers of your County, 
should convene at some seasonable time and place, to 
concert the most effectual measures for Asserting and 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


97 


maintaining the authority of the Commonwealth ; and 
the result being Communicated to me, will receive any 
sanction that it is in my power to confer. In the mean- 
time you will be pleased to transmit to me, in as 
authentic a form as circumstances will admit, any in- 
formation that you may collect upon the subject of 
the present letter. 

“I am Sir 

“Your most obedient humble Servant 
“Thos Mifflin. 

“Philadelphia 27th May 1796. 

“To Jonathan Shoemaker Esquire 

“ Justice of the Peace Northumberland County .” 

This disturbance threatened at one time to become a 
very serious affair ; and as it was, was not settled with- 
out the shedding of blood. Just where the sturdy old 
Quaker drew the line between his religious convictions 
and his duty to his country we have no means now of 
knowing. 

At a later date he operated the Shadwell Flour-Mills, 
near Monticello, and afterwards the Columbia Mills. 
While at the latter, his son George used to relate that 
“‘Dolly’ Madison frequently rode out to his father’s 
house seated in the mill-wagon to visit his step-mother, 
7 


9 8 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


with whom she was intimate, and spend the day in 
social chat.” There was certainly no cause in those 
times for complaint that our rulers were not demo- 
cratic enough. 

Jonathan was intimate with Thomas Jefferson, and 
one day when they were going over an account, Jeffer- 
son disputed an item in a business transaction. Jona- 
than went on to the next item, with the simple remark, 
“ It has always been a maxim of my life to suffer rather 
than contend.” Jefferson was so struck by it that he 
requested him to repeat it. He did so, with the result 
that Jefferson stated he was prepared to go as far as 
his friend in the application of this Quaker maxim, and 
passed the item without further comment. Jonathan’s 
grandson, Dr. William L. Shoemaker, wrote the follow- 
ing appropriate sonnet on the episode, which was pub- 
lished in the Washington Star of October 18, 1879 : 

“ NON-RESISTANCE. 

'“It has always been a maxim of my life to suffer rather than contend .’ — Jonathan 
Shoemaker to Thomas Jefferson. 

“ Better it is to suffer than contend. 

The proud forefinger of the hand of might 
But seldom points the way to truth and right. 

True victor he whose will knows how to bend, 

And to the strife so puts a speedy end. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


99 


Perchance a ray from reason’s lamp may light 
The clouds of wrong that dim the hostile sight, 

A strong conviction to the conscience send. 

The love of self blinds us to what is just, 

And leads us to o’errate our proper due 
And play the tyrant. A wise man is he 
Who yields the point, yet not because he must, 

Like a whipped hound ; nor finds he aught to rue, 
For, conquering pride, he still in soul is free.” 


Jonathan and his first wife are buried in a little grave- 
yard, which he gave about 1809 to the Friends’ Meet- 
ing, located on I Street, between Eighteenth and Nine- 
teenth Streets, Washington, D.C. The plot is in the 
shape of a rhomb, of which the four sides measure 
about one hundred feet. It is situated near his old 
homestead, about where the intersection of Connecticut 
Avenue, when extended, will meet the Columbia Road, 
and close to the romantic banks of Rock Creek. A 
number of the family are interred within its borders, as 
well as members of those of the Seever, Schofield, 
McPherson, and Janney families. Few stones mark 
their last resting-place, while through neglect it is fast 
being overgrown with trees, and is simply enclosed by 
a post-and-rail fence. As the city is rapidly building 
out towards it, it is most likely only a question of time 
when it will be obliterated and forgotten. 


IOO 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


A half-brother of David and Jonathan, before men- 
tioned, was named Thomas Shoemaker, and was, of 
course, a grandson of Dorothy. He remained at Shoe- 
makertown, and was commonly called “ Squire. ” His 
house, of which we have a picture, stood on the site of 
A. J. Engle’s present store. Thomas’s daughters, Ann 
and Martha, married Bartholomew Mather and Hugh 
Foulke respectively, while his son Nathan studied med- 
icine, graduating from the University of Pennsylvania 
Fourth month ioth, 1810. He commenced practising 
in Frankford, but upon the invitation of his friend Dr. 
T. C. James, removed to Philadelphia, where he soon 
built up a large and lucrative practice, residing at No. 
816 Chestnut Street. Later in life he removed to a 
house he owned at No. 830 Arch Street, in which he 
remained until his death in 1868. In 1830, when forty- 
two years of age, he felt constrained to speak in Meet- 
ing, as he expresses it in his journal, “ all unworthy and 
unsanctified as I felt myself to be, I was induced to 
open my mouth in the ministry.” In 1835 he was 
an acknowledged minister, and thereafter a frequent 
speaker of much ability. He married in 1811 Frances 
Maria Kirkbride, a descendant of Joseph Kirkbride, 
who settled in New Jersey in 1682, and took a promi- 
nent part in the history of that colony. Dr. Shoe- 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


IOI 


maker retired from the practice of medicine when fifty- 
five years of age, living, however, to be eighty years 
old. 

The blood, if not the name, was represented in 
Sandy Spring, Maryland, by Benjamin Hallowed. 
His mother was Jane, daughter of Benjamin and 
Mary Comly Shoemaker. Benjamin Shoemaker came 
from the marriage of George and Sarah Wall Shoe- 
maker. Jane married Anthony Hallowed, who was a 
son of William and Mary Hallowed, Mary being a 
daughter of Anthony and Sarah Shoemaker Williams, 
whose line I have before spoken of. It is thus that 
Benjamin Hallowed claimed descent on his mother’s 
side from George and Sarah Wall Shoemaker, and on 
his father’s from George and Catharine Shoemaker. 

Benjamin Hallowed was born at Shoemakertown 
Eighth month 1 7th, 1 799. He early developed a special 
talent for mathematics, and decided to qualify himself 
as a teacher. When this had been done, he occupied 
various positions in educational establishments, finally 
starting a boarding-school of his own at Alexandria, 
Virginia, which proved a great success, and he had 
many pupils who afterwards became renowned. He 
passed the latter part of a busy life at his home in 
Sandy Spring, Maryland. He was a man of majestic 


I 


102 


THE SHOEMAKER FA MIL 1. 


appearance, strong character, combined with extreme 
simplicity and modesty, an astronomer and mathema- 
tician of recognized ability, and a minister in the 
Society of Friends, being loved and implicitly trusted 
by all who knew him. 

He died Ninth month 7th, 1877. A writer said of 
him, “ As teacher, lecturer, philanthropist, and Friend, 
he filled a wide sphere of usefulness.” His sister, 
Mary S. Lippincott, had many of his traits of char- 
acter; she was born at her grandfather Benjamin 
Shoemakers house, corner of York Road and Chelten- 
ham Avenue, Sixth month 23rd, 1801. She educated 
herself as a teacher, and with the exception of thirteen 
years following her marriage, continued in this voca- 
tion until her eightieth year, much of the time at 
Moorestown, New Jersey. She was an approved min- 
ister in the Society of Friends, and was clerk of the 
Philadelphia Woman’s Yearly Meeting twenty- two 
years. She had a strong character, vigorous intellect, 
and was greatly beloved. She died in Camden, New 
Jersey, Fourth month 1 8th, 1888, aged eighty-seven 
years, her mental faculties being bright to the last. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


103 


CHAPTER XVI. 

OTHERS OF THE NAME. 

There are others of the name who do not seem to 
have been any connection of our family, and yet who 
have been mistaken for them, so that it seems well to 
give a brief outline of their history, as it may save 
some confusion to members of both sides. 

First come the Shoemakers of Herkimer County, 
New York, who settled in that portion of the Mohawk 
Valley known as Tyrone Township. They, with the 
Herkimers, with whom they afterwards intermarried, 
were the patentees of this section. Michael M. Shoe- 
maker informs me that his father removed to Cin- 
cinnati in 1836 from the “Mohawk,” and married a 
Steiner, of Fredericktown, Maryland, who was related 
to the Carrols and others of that section. Michael’s 
grandmother Shoemaker used to say that one of the 
original Shoemakers settled in Pennsylvania, while the 
other selected New York. This is only tradition. 
Probably the most reliable account is found in Ben- 
ton’s “ History of Herkimer County,” page 183. He 


io4 


THE SHOEMAKER FA MIL Y. 


states “ there were two brothers of the name (Shoe- 
maker) in the list of patentees, — Ludolph, afterwards 
called Rudolph, and Thomas. They were both young 
and unmarried when they came to the German Flats.” 
Benton further says, “In looking into the Document- 
ary History of the State, I find the name ‘ Schumaker 
among the Palatinates immigrants of 1710, from which 
the present name Shoemaker is derived.” 

Rudolph Shoemaker married Gertrude, sister of 
General Nicholas Herkimer, and there seems to have 
been a large number of descendants, many of whom 
occupied various public offices, being members of the 
Assembly, and represented during the war of 1812 
as officers in the American army. Their means and 
early settlement in the valley gave them prominence. 
It is possible that, as they came from the Palatinate, 
they were originally the same family as ours, but they 
do not appear to have ever belonged to the Society 
of Friends, being, until the present generation, mem- 
bers of the German Reformed Church. This differ- 
ence of religious views is, however, no proof of a 
difference of family. While a few remain in the 
“Mohawk,” many have scattered, Michael’s father 
going to Cincinnati, his uncles, Matthew Shoemaker 
settling in Toledo, Colonel Michael Shoemaker in 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


io 5 


Jackson, Michigan, Joseph Shoemaker in Camden, 
Michigan, while an aunt was the wife of Judge Josiah 
McRoberts, of Joliet, Illinois. 

Another of the name settled in Northampton County, 
Pennsylvania, early in the last century, but I have been 
unable to learn his origin. In the Register of Wills’ 
office, Philadelphia, is the will of George Shoemaker, 
of Milford, Northampton County. As will be seen by 
an extract from it, he had money in the Fatherland, so 
it is fair to presume he was an emigrant, or the son of 
one, and hardly likely to come from our family, who 
no doubt brought all their belongings with them ; nor 
have I knowledge that any of them left the neighbor- 
hood of Philadelphia at that early date. Will of 
George: “In the name of God Amen, The Fourth 
day of June in the year of our Lord One Thousand 
Seven Hundred and Fifty-six. I George Shuemaker 
of Upper Milford Township in the County of North- 
ampton in the Province of Pennsylvania, Yeoman,” 
etc. “ Imprimis, I give and bequeath unto my Eldest 
son John Shumaker, the sum of Twenty Shillings 
Lawful Money of Pennsylvania to be paid unto him 
of my hereafter Nominated Executors out of my 
effects one year after my Decease if Demanded, this 
to be his share and portion with the Ninety-nine 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


106 


pounds of like money which he hath Received of my 
effects in Germany.” He then provided for his widow 
and distributed his property, amounting to several 
thousand pounds and a number of acres of land, 
among his children, Frederick, Jacob, Adam, Elizabeth, 
and Barbara. 

Rupp, in his “ History of Northampton County,” 
states that at a Court of Record (the first, I think) 
held at Easton, October 3rd, 1752, among the persons 
summoned to serve on the “ Grand Inquest,” but who 
failed to appear, was Benjamin Shoemaker. At the 
same date the sheriff appointed him and two others as 
commissioners. A Michael Shoemaker also at that 
time was appointed constable, showing several of the 
name located there. The line of Benjamin evidently 
was as follows : Munsell & Co., in their “ History of 
Wyoming County,” say, “Elijah Shoemaker, Jr., was 
born at Forty Fort, June 4, 1778. His parents were 
Elijah Shoemaker and Jane McDowell, daughter of 
John McDowell, of Cherry Valley, Northampton 
County, Pa. The grandparents of Shoemaker were 
Benjamin and Elizabeth Depuy Shoemaker, both among 
the earliest settlers in the neighborhood of Strouds- 
burg, Monroe County, Pa. The former was of Ger- 
man origin. Benjamin died in 1775, leaving two sons, 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


107 


Elijah and Daniel, and six daughters. Daniel and his 
sisters, after their father’s death, removed to Nichols, 
State of New York, while Elijah purchased land in the 
Wyoming.” Miner’s history of “ The Wyoming” gives 
a full account of Elijah. It states, “Among the list of 
the first two hundred enrolled as actual settlers bear- 
ing date June 2, 1769, appears that of Benjamin, Jr.” 

This, I presume, was the Benjamin spoken of above, 
who probably took up the land which his son Elijah 
bought from the estate after his death. 

Elijah seems early to have become a military man, 
and is designated as lieutenant, At the sixth town 
meeting, held October 17, 1774, he and four others were 
appointed a committee “ to mark a road from the Sus- 
quehanna.” In 1778, on July 3, the terrible massacre 
of the Wyoming took place. The little band of three 
hundred on whom the defence relied were utterly 
unable to hold their own against the British and Indians. 
Miner’s account states that Elijah was second in com- 
mand of one of the six companies. The description of 
his death is as follows : “ All the sweet charities of life 
seemed extinguished. Lieutenant Shoemaker, one of 
the most generous and benevolent-hearted men, whose 
wealth enabled him to dispense charity and do good, — 
which was a delight to him, — fled to the river, when 


io8 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


Windecker, who had often fed at his board and drank 
of his cup, came to the brink. ‘ Come out ! come out !’ 
said he, ‘ you know I will protect you.’ How could he 
doubt it ? Windecker reached out his left hand as if 
to lead him, much exhausted, ashore, and dashed his 
tomahawk into the head of his benefactor, who fell back 
and floated away.” It was from Elijah, Jr., born just a 
month previous to his father’s death, and who survived 
the massacre, that those of the name who reside in 
Wilkesbarre are descended. They have retained the 
prominent place secured by their ancestors. 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


109 


CHAPTER XVII. 

OTHER INCIDENTS. 

There is a remarkable physiological fact connected 
with the line of George and Sarah Wall Shoemaker, 
which is a strongly-marked resemblance pervading 
members whose lines parted nearly two centuries ago. 
Its characteristics are black hair, with a dark complex- 
ion, added to a medium height, though stoutly-built per- 
son. I have noticed members who could not have been 
nearer than fifth or sixth cousins, yet whose likeness to 
each other was such that I am sure they would have 
passed for brothers. The following incident bears on 
the subject. The late Samuel M. Shoemaker, of Balti- 
more, who was much interested in family genealogy, 
but who probably had not the time to go into it thor- 
oughly, in a conversation with Robert Shoemaker about 
their families, stated that “ although our ancestors came 
from the same part of Germany, I am under the im- 
pression they came from different branches. You,” 
he said, “come from the black and I from the red 
Shoemakers.” Samuel was of an extremely florid com- 


no 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


plexion, and, as we have seen, came from George’s 
brother Isaac, while Robert is dark and a typical Shoe- 
maker of George’s line. It is hardly probable that this 
remark of Samuel’s was original, for he spoke of it 
as a family tradition which the distinctive coloring of 
the two lines had handed down. 

A small number of the family of George and Sarah 
Wall Shoemaker remain around the old site at Shoe- 
makertown, many have located in neighboring counties, 
a few have drifted back to the first home of the family 
in Germantown, while others have wandered to the re- 
motest parts of the country, Dr. R. H. Shoemaker 
planting the family on the California coast. It is a little 
remarkable, however, that so many of the members of 
the various lines have remained true to the faith for 
which their ancestors sacrificed their home and country, 
settling in a wilderness in order to enjoy religious 
toleration. 

While none seem to have done anything very bril- 
liant, as Friends set little store on worldly prefer- 
ment or wealth, they have all, so far as I have found, 
been reputable citizens, ever ready to do their duty to 
the community in which they resided, guiltless of deed 
or action which required covering in order to spare the 
blush of shame to descendants. Is not this record, ex- 


THE SHOEMAKER FAMILY. 


in 


tending as it does over more than two centuries, one 
we should be proud of? And is it not largely due to 
those moral and religious precepts and trainings which 
are so characteristic of the Society which our ancestors 
suffered so much to be members of? For even where 
persons cease to belong, it takes several generations to 
eradicate what is born in the blood and handed down 
unconsciously in this way to posterity. 

“THE QUAKER OF THE OLDEN TIME. 

“The Quaker of the olden time ! — 

How calm and firm and true, 

Unspotted by its wrong and crime, 

He walked the dark earth through ! 

The lust of power, the love of gain, 

The thousand lures of sin 
Around him, had no power to stain 
The purity within. 

“ With that deep insight which detects 
All great things in the small, 

And knows how each man’s life affects 
The spiritual life of all, 

He walked by faith and not by sight, 

By love and not by law ; 

The presence of the wrong or right 
He rather felt than saw. 

“He felt that wrong with wrong partakes, 

That nothing stands alone, 


1 1 2 


THE SHOEMAKER TAMIL Y. 


That whoso gives the motive, makes 
His brother’s sin his own. 

And, pausing not for doubtful choice 
Of evils great or small, 

He listened to that inward voice 
Which called away from all. 

“ O Spirit of that early day, 

So pure and strong and true, 

Be with us in the narrow way 
Our faithful fathers knew. 

Give strength the evil to forsake, 

The cross of Truth to bear, 

And love and reverent fear to make 
Our daily lives a prayer !” 


Whittier. 










































































































i 1 1 


















































"V 







































































% 


t 


























. 

••• 








r ;■ u ' v: ft 



























































- 

: 




















































. 




































































































■ 



























































W <m a "V - . oV * 

>A T- 


V <?' AY *z\ 

& e , ^ A ; fi 


''Va <*V 


✓ W*- * & * * + 

„ // /..s s <6 ■'ttix* A O, */ ' O -0 

? b 0 ,o^ ,o> * 



•P 1/ , A V 

TV ^ 


V y °" 

V ■* 

y 


‘ ^ 

A 



\ 


o o 


,y -v -. , 

• 'P-, * "w 

y ^ 

a x K , /f i < 

& c° NC *, ^ 

; V 
« -•- $ 



y o * X * A ■ 

«.V c 0 N c * 'G 

^ A **^y ' 




■P, « h w -'^' * A?' ^ 

P -0 V 

^ .cy * v 1 8 + <h 

\ " #>L-A:. ' a - ■*/- V 


r£» y " <t _0 O i 

> % n n ■> .0' o, 1 

'* > 0,0' c> 

>G A * x/VPP ’• ^ <?' n A 

...... t'' ‘¥^'"' : ° " f ■*%%- 

°.;<€mp: A% '» yy . a% vp 

ft eJ -». v * ‘s 

y o*** v f ^ v ^ */,*S S -iO . .* <\ y 0 ^ 

l\ X - 0 N fi # V- * pf> . * ' ‘ * * ^ 

■ A . O- ,-0 v -/ Ps 


^0 


A 


x 0 ^. 


o> ‘A 


:. a 


0 


,0 


,v 


\ 


Oo 


A 


* , 


* 4* 


') Si 


VA • ; k 0 

, ‘V ’ • ® \ u 

<* c zi^ ^ r ' v’ \X* s "' ' < \ , ^r ^ . 

c- *. '•• o ck • s " y O o . 

s. 


^ A- 

T 0r> ..A 


</> \ 


a'% ‘-A 


y i * ~ v 

X A ^ / V 

1 *>p c;^" > '• V- A; ♦ ^Y 

" y y tA\ vf N //>7 S y ,\\ v ^ 

T r « - » V ; t i 

=» xV .O ^ y. 


v ' ^ - y ^ . SS • \ 


-#‘ *» lUu- 




> ^ -. '. ;. 






A' '■•••.. 


4 <x 


o 


,-0 k X 


v B ^ 


OO 


A’ 


A •%. - 


\ s ^ o A 



'nx U y o ' ‘> 0 . (A 

^n,A J ^ 0 ^ <■ C 0 

¥A-. U- c 0 o >- A 

•k ^ cf- c z^/Jj' } jj0 „v y ot. , V 

* '0 

* .0 N 0 ’ ^ 0 - 

y ^ A 0 V ^ 

* -‘a r 


4. 

..'',y .<'*♦ A '•"*/ 

tf> v s rT^f- * ■p '^ w -' ' 




^ A 

•P,. 7? 


\° °* 


8 l \ 


0 v u \ * 0 


-- 

yr 

* A % 


■<r„ y 


, 'P. .A" A Yv : , ' -', " P ,vi * -f 

A a AA'- n ° ip r. A -• - 

: v "• A %. IV. 


y G * \ ^ s\ 


A x c 0 N ( ‘ -p 


"’fv A 1 - .. 

A s <= - ■ . _ , 



V/SJ, z Z „ A. r, - 

* A A ■*• ^ , 

S S S <6^ < y 0 * ^ A X 0 N c / A * ' s A 

• * A v« 1 A * , A A y !A V A ^ 
oo'* ^ ^ ?' ff w 

: \= ^ Oo - A 

•A % .a - s .. f ^ 

'*'„'> "*” .0 »" % V ' > 

'* ■»>. .A .'A1:AyA '<» .A ■ .* *- •*• 


^ %' « A\ 

* a)* '^a - 

Jt, <y * y 


° J "6f/ as \\r * av ' J ,y 0 ^ 

» l> -i d*s 

* ~ * <\ O, 4r 

aV c 0 N '■ « Y b. 

' O 


. o k \ 1 k oA' t " n ’ c 

- ° oy- ; 7 % ^ ^ y 


o> -' % ^ ^ 

.#' y »»A’ y c o/, 

> v‘”»* > y *’' ' "' A 

* ‘ *, ,J %- «,A * j&y&A o v v A 

: -* » * *A' 

<v / j w ' V N r 

•*> ' .A I/, 


l \ 




y ^ 

>. \ x yr. <a „ 

v',' 1 • * ’ /, 

Or 




/ ^ V ■: 




*1 a V 


\°°<. 




^ v, / / 

/ , • v. 

°*U * H V 

cv 



r> \\ ' 

^ y 

A 


.y p 


^ owv .^; ^ - 1 

\ «<, _sSX\\\^n y V ^ 



x 00 ^. 




. v, * 
'• p ' - 


if' 


17 ■» s o • ^ 

s > ,o v * 

* - / A> i ~ 

^ - 


* 

* ' -A > < 


(V s * v ° * 

c * s ~/rxh r\ '+ 

' •**'"'*> * '>* A 

|’> : \0 o. : # 


■* . & * , v CL V 

> A \D ^ / c s (j 

A ,0 s1 <V ,. '/* * * S A v I 

A - * f, 0 A 





•y V 

o 0 N 



\ * 0 


* '7»/,v..;r ^ * 

« . >* V >j '*°’ a 0 ' 

V v * _ ❖ . > . cy 


^ •* * \ > -. ^ 

^ A* * 

* ^ A' ^ 

a** V s ° < 

a * 

= J. 0 o«, 

^ - * 

p c* * -T <\ 

v ' ^ fl [ ^ 

^ V * n /t * 1 



V 


°>?WV **' '*< 

J o * v * A 


A" 

^ v :? * 
A\ N 

^ ^ ° '0 


'ta ^ A o * , , s ■*-* 

<P A 


° A A - ^ Ji 


«>* V 

o Cr 


, . ./Vaa%* ' * ” V u A ■ * 

\ 7 /Z^ * ~Kc> ° v ^ 

^ V ° AN 

$• 


*: " u i a sr* . " r ; -vf« •. 'W 

,v°V-/V * 8 ■'* /s-> ,*V* \^r:>y V 7 . 

i H 8 '\f ^ „ 



. V 1 ^-. *» so’ < 

v ^ S L^J * ^ \ o 



<<. 0 t 

A<> 0 

a- 



\ 

•S ... , ./? 







^ A r ^r) 

/ c 0 N c ♦ 

. ' O t> -sl vv * 

5 ^ a\ ^ - r > ;W ✓ 


0 » K ~ \ 



x 0 ^. 


oO 

^ a- 

* • •» ' sjf 4 A, ' 

c °, '■*TT,.' ,# -V % 

\‘°', C- v\s'"U "> iV ^ 

%#■ v*' a * "* •%- r 


0 M 0 




*<*3 




0 * \ 



c>" y 

O ^ / v s <1 

0 N C ^ ^ y ^*S is, 

c *< <b c 0 ' ' 

✓ 

✓* v>^ V ^ 

« o cr 

■4 -f, * 

,#. ^y/yjr " ^ 

;% 

% o’\# •* 

« ° !> * ^ -</> 


i | ft / . x \ v /- ^/- ^ A * S S 

^ y .I** ^ /.t # c> 



-/ V -A <> 

” V^ N “ 

a 


H A 


.yy >** 

O 0 X 

^ *A 

a . • tv ; - y \ < . . >; * - • — >> * 



% ■ o 0> ^ 

y' 'V 

✓ «>^ V 

« o cr 




A 1/1 


<TV v ^ 



^ A * 







° ^ ,^ V 4 


Z ^ ^ 


^ c;V *''j\Va ° '<? 

v _ '<* * ® 

* <X^‘ cT> “ 

^ .\V t/\ 9 . 

^-'S ^ y ^^yW S>~ % 

# ’ k V^v% /' 

v\ *A 


3 M 0 ' .9^ » V . 0 , •% 

*, ^ / *WA„ y 


a- 11 ^* A .& 

V^V.-vV-. 0 /,' 





/ c- 

s-^-% v. 9 » 

t', ^ y - 

<■ A o 

* oV ^ 

s \0 x 

^ lift. > 

^0' N* 

c 





V A * 

^ -P Vv AN 

y 1 A ^ 

o xQ o. 



y v 

7 #S* A X 

v 

A 7> 



-O' A 

• 0 

& y 

c 



A V- - . 

A« / ^ v \^ X A N c *J*\ 

^ ^ ' A \, ^ 





V V* 




